ANIMAL 1VELFARE INSTITUTE P.O. Box 3492, Grand Central Station, New York, N.Y. 10017 January, February, March, 1970 Vol. 19, No. 1 HEARINGS ON BILL TO PROHIBIT SHOOTING ANIMALS FROM AIRPLANES In opening hearings March 16th on H.R. 15188 to provide a criminal penalty for shooting at birds and animals from aircraft, Congressman John Dingell (D., Mich.), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation of the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, stated that more mail had been received on this bill than on any other legis- lation before the Committee in the past fourteen years. Congressman John P. Saylor (R., Pa.), chief spon- sor of the bill, delivered an eloquent and forceful plea for its passage, and proposed strengthening amend- ments including criminal penalties for anyone who would hunt a wolf from any motorized vehicle. He noted that government officials are also involved in shooting animals from airplanes. H.R. 15188 as intro- duced would exempt government agencies from its provisions, but Congressman Saylor, speaking extem- poraneously said, "Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I am not sure there should be any exclusion." He expressed the • view -that the Congress should tell the Department of Interior to cease many of their practices, especially - shooting from airplanes. Congressman Dingell noted that the Department of the Interior has given an adverse report on H.R. 15188 and asked Congressman Saylor to comment on this. Congressman Saylor expressed extreme displeasure with the Predator and Rodent Control (PARC) people in the Department, describing them as career employees dedicated to self-preservation — preserving their own jobs and getting a promotion. Congressman Saylor asked what kind of people they are who would want to condone such practices, conceding only that they could be classed as homo sapiens, but questioning whether they could be described as human beings. Congressman Dingell indicated that the Department of the Interior could expect stiff questioning at a future hearing on poisoning of animals in its Predator and Rodent Control program. He expressed concern, too, about the shooting of Grizzly Bear from a private plane in Alaska which he learned of during a recent visit to the State. Congressman Thomas M. Pelly (R., Wash.), rank- ing Republican member of the Subcommittee, com- mended Congressman Saylor and stated his desire to work with him "so we can get this legislation passed." In response to questioning, Department of the In- terior spokesmen agreed that the legislation should be broadened to include harrassment as well as shooting from any motorized vehicle, for example, snowmobiles, as well as aircraft. However, they insisted that it all be clone by the state governments. Congressman Joseph Karth, (D., Minn.) taxed In- terior spokesmen with "paradoxical testimony" and asked how much money was being spent annually by the Department on predator control. He was informed that $3,340,000 was being spent by the Federal Gov 7 ernment, and that cooperatively with the funds pro- vided by the states, the amount was $7,500,000. Both federally owned and contract aircraft were used to kill about 5,000 coyotes last year by shooting from aircraft. Another approximately 65,000 coyotes were killed by othei means, mainly poison. In a spirited colloquy between Congressman Saylor and Congressman Dingell concerning deaths of sheep attributed to predators, Congressman Saylor noted that most such sheep are not lost to predators. Refer- ring to the accidental drift of poison in an Army test, he pointed out that the Army killed more last year than predators had killed in ten. He emphasized the very low fee paid by sheep growers for permitting their sheep to graze on the Public Lands belonging to the United States. Congessman Dave Obey (D., VVis.), a co-sponsor of H.R. 15188, stated in his testimony for the bill that in the last five years, hunters in one state killed more wolves than the total now alive in this country. CRUELTY ELIMINATED AT 1970 WESTINGHOUSE SCIENCE TALENT SEARCH This year's Westinghouse Science Talent Search ex- hibition, held February 28, 1970, at the Shoreham Hotel, Washington, D.C., presented the work of the forty finalists, none of whose projects caused pain or suffering to animals. This is a splendid humane pre- cedent which every institution awarding prizes for sci- ence projects and every science fair should emulate. A report from Dr. Barbara Orlans of the AWI Scientific Committee, who examined the exhibits in 1966, 1967, 1969 and 1970, states in part : "Two bi- ology projects, both on bacteria, were awarded $6,000 and $4,000 each. One of these young boys had nude his own experiments on pigmentation of certain b::c- teria and how it could be altered. The other boy stud- ied optical diffraction of bacterial flagella. One enter- prising youngster obtained some tissue cells and sub- jected them to different types of vibratory stress with a machine he built himself. This work was conducted in his bedroom—indeed most of these competition pro- jects are done at home. Microscopic examination re- vealed various changes in the cell structure resulting from the damaging effects of vibration. The boy thought this may have some relevance to vibratory damage re- sulting from the use of hydraulic drills and various machine operations in factories. He, like the other finalists, received $250 and a five-day expense-free trip to Washington. "Of two teenagers who studied plants, one grew tobacco in his garden and at summer camp and tried to see if he could make the plants immune to tobacco mosaic virus. The other student investigated root tips of corn. Other projects were on bacterial DNA, re- generation of a simple microscopic organism which the student cut into sections, and a study of species dif- ferences of hemoglobin, the red pigment of blood." These exhibits represent a major policy change on the part of the Westinghouse Corporation and, pre- sumably, its advisor, Science Service, both of whom (Cont. on page 2) Humane bit being substituted for painful bit by infirmier Hamitch at Khemisset Souk, Morocco. For more photographs showing the progress of the hu- mane bit campaign conducted by The Society for the Protection of Animals in North Africa see page 3. 401 (. 0
Transcript
ANIMAL 1VELFARE INSTITUTE
P.O. Box 3492, Grand Central Station, New York, N.Y. 10017
January, February, March, 1970 Vol. 19, No. 1
HEARINGS ON BILL TO PROHIBITSHOOTING ANIMALS FROM AIRPLANES
In opening hearings March 16th on H.R. 15188 toprovide a criminal penalty for shooting at birds andanimals from aircraft, Congressman John Dingell (D.,Mich.), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Fisheriesand Wildlife Conservation of the House MerchantMarine and Fisheries Committee, stated that more mailhad been received on this bill than on any other legis-lation before the Committee in the past fourteen years.
Congressman John P. Saylor (R., Pa.), chief spon-sor of the bill, delivered an eloquent and forceful pleafor its passage, and proposed strengthening amend-ments including criminal penalties for anyone whowould hunt a wolf from any motorized vehicle. Henoted that government officials are also involved inshooting animals from airplanes. H.R. 15188 as intro-duced would exempt government agencies from itsprovisions, but Congressman Saylor, speaking extem-poraneously said, "Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I am notsure there should be any exclusion." He expressed the
• view -that the Congress should tell the Department ofInterior to cease many of their practices, especially
- shooting from airplanes.Congressman Dingell noted that the Department of
the Interior has given an adverse report on H.R. 15188and asked Congressman Saylor to comment on this.
Congressman Saylor expressed extreme displeasurewith the Predator and Rodent Control (PARC) peoplein the Department, describing them as career employeesdedicated to self-preservation — preserving their ownjobs and getting a promotion. Congressman Saylorasked what kind of people they are who would wantto condone such practices, conceding only that theycould be classed as homo sapiens, but questioningwhether they could be described as human beings.
Congressman Dingell indicated that the Departmentof the Interior could expect stiff questioning at a futurehearing on poisoning of animals in its Predator andRodent Control program. He expressed concern, too,about the shooting of Grizzly Bear from a private planein Alaska which he learned of during a recent visit tothe State.
Congressman Thomas M. Pelly (R., Wash.), rank-ing Republican member of the Subcommittee, com-mended Congressman Saylor and stated his desire towork with him "so we can get this legislation passed."
In response to questioning, Department of the In-terior spokesmen agreed that the legislation should bebroadened to include harrassment as well as shootingfrom any motorized vehicle, for example, snowmobiles,as well as aircraft. However, they insisted that it allbe clone by the state governments.
Congressman Joseph Karth, (D., Minn.) taxed In-terior spokesmen with "paradoxical testimony" andasked how much money was being spent annually bythe Department on predator control. He was informedthat $3,340,000 was being spent by the Federal Gov 7
ernment, and that cooperatively with the funds pro-vided by the states, the amount was $7,500,000. Bothfederally owned and contract aircraft were used to killabout 5,000 coyotes last year by shooting from aircraft.Another approximately 65,000 coyotes were killed byothei means, mainly poison.
In a spirited colloquy between Congressman Saylorand Congressman Dingell concerning deaths of sheepattributed to predators, Congressman Saylor notedthat most such sheep are not lost to predators. Refer-ring to the accidental drift of poison in an Army test,he pointed out that the Army killed more last year thanpredators had killed in ten. He emphasized the verylow fee paid by sheep growers for permitting their sheepto graze on the Public Lands belonging to the UnitedStates.
Congessman Dave Obey (D., VVis.), a co-sponsor ofH.R. 15188, stated in his testimony for the bill that inthe last five years, hunters in one state killed morewolves than the total now alive in this country.
hibition, held February 28, 1970, at the ShorehamHotel, Washington, D.C., presented the work of theforty finalists, none of whose projects caused pain orsuffering to animals. This is a splendid humane pre-cedent which every institution awarding prizes for sci-ence projects and every science fair should emulate.
A report from Dr. Barbara Orlans of the AWIScientific Committee, who examined the exhibits in1966, 1967, 1969 and 1970, states in part : "Two bi-ology projects, both on bacteria, were awarded $6,000and $4,000 each. One of these young boys had nudehis own experiments on pigmentation of certain b::c-teria and how it could be altered. The other boy stud-ied optical diffraction of bacterial flagella. One enter-prising youngster obtained some tissue cells and sub-jected them to different types of vibratory stress witha machine he built himself. This work was conductedin his bedroom—indeed most of these competition pro-jects are done at home. Microscopic examination re-vealed various changes in the cell structure resultingfrom the damaging effects of vibration. The boy thoughtthis may have some relevance to vibratory damage re-sulting from the use of hydraulic drills and variousmachine operations in factories. He, like the otherfinalists, received $250 and a five-day expense-free tripto Washington.
"Of two teenagers who studied plants, one grewtobacco in his garden and at summer camp and triedto see if he could make the plants immune to tobaccomosaic virus. The other student investigated root tipsof corn. Other projects were on bacterial DNA, re-generation of a simple microscopic organism which thestudent cut into sections, and a study of species dif-ferences of hemoglobin, the red pigment of blood."
These exhibits represent a major policy change onthe part of the Westinghouse Corporation and, pre-sumably, its advisor, Science Service, both of whom
(Cont. on page 2)
Humane bit being substituted for painful bit by infirmierHamitch at Khemisset Souk, Morocco.
For more photographs showing the progress of the hu-mane bit campaign conducted by The Society for the
Protection of Animals in North Africa see page 3.401
(.0
Cruelty Eliminated at 1970 WestinghouseScience Talent Search(Cont. from page 1)
were sharply criticised in the AWI Information Report,Vol. 18, No. 2, and, subsequently, in the press. Forexample, cruel experiments by high school studentscame under attack by Bob Cromie of The ChicagoTribune in a series of columns which led off Decem-ber 17, 1969 as follows : "The Westinghouse ElectricCorporation may consider the blinding of five housesparrows for use in experiments by a teen-age highschool girl worthy of an award in its Science TalentSearch contest. I consider it outrageous and a horror."
In a follow-up column he stated : "A column lastweek about awards given by the Westinghouse ElectricCorporation to teen-agers performing experiments onlive animals has drawn further information about thisdisturbingly wide-spread practice from irate readers."
Mr. Cromie enumerated cruel experiments that re-ceived prizes from other sources and underlined thefact, stating : "In fairness to Westinghouse, it shouldbe made plain that other organizations also offer awardsfor such obscenities. The boy who was the winnerearly this year at the 17th annual Central Indian Sci-entific Fair at Indianapolis, for example, was sent asa guest to the International Science Fair and also givena one-week cruise with the United States Navy. Hiscontribution to the world's knowledge was to subjectrats to electrical shock that caused severe neuroses, in-cluding, in the words of this young 'scientist,' 'completewithdrawal from surroundings.'
On December 26th, Mr. Cromie gave Westinghousea full opportunity to reply to the charges, and noted :
"In the same mail came a letter from Ernest J. Ros-coe, an ecologist who now teaches geology at a Chicagomuseum. He wrote, in part : 'I would like to applaudyou for your articles on animal experimentation byyoungsters . . . I became aware of this problem abouta year ago from an article in the journal Science, or-gan of the American Association for the Advancementof Science . . . [which] revealed that a study of 302biology projects exhibited at 10 science fairs showedthat 157 to 205 involved pain or death for higher ani-mals . . . There is more detailed documentation in theAnimal Welfare Institute's Information Report, Vol.17, No. 2, April-May-June, 1968. Some of this is sodisgusting that I don't think it should appear in a fam-ily newspaper . . . The nonexperimental, field-orientednatural sciences have been pushed into the backgroundin present-day secondary education. This is a trend Ideplore. Such articles as yours may help to bring somescientists to their senses.'
Dr. Barbara Orlans provided Mr. Cromie with in-formation concerning previous Westinghouse ScienceTalent Searches. "Among the 1969 finalists," she wrote,"there were approximately 10 on biological topics. Ofthese ten, seven involved pain or death to vertebrateanimals. . . . The record shows that sensational animalexperiments have won many prizes in previous years."
The contrast with the work of the 1970 finalists isdramatic.
The presentation of a completely humane ScienceTalent Search exhibition in 1970 by the WestinghouseCorporation, in cooperation with Science Service, rep-resents a change of major importance to the humanemovement. Readers of the Information Report whohave followed the campaign for humane biology teach-ing and humane 'projects by high school biology stu-dents, may wish to express their appreciation to theWestinghouse Corporation for taking this significantstep. To do so, Write to Mr. C. E. Hammond, Presi-dent, Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 3 GatewayCenter, Pittsburgh, Pa. 15230.
PHOTOGRAPHS OF ANIMALEXPRESSIONS NEEDED
A second edition of the AWI publication, "AnimalExpressions, A Photographic footnote to Charles Dar-win's Expression of the Emotions in Man and Ani-mals," is planned, and persons who would like to con-tribute photographs to the new edition are invited towrite to the AWI at the address on the masthead. Themanual is divided into chapters following Darwin'sdistinctions: They are : I. Affection, II. Joy, III. Con-tentment, IV. Pain, Anger, Anxiety and Depression,V. Astonishment, VI. Terror. Photographs showingthese or other expressions, whether in the animal's faceor physical attitude, are welcome. Any species, eitherdomestic or wild is suitable for inclusion.
AWI EXHIBIT AT CINCINNATICONVENTION OF NATIONAL
SCIENCE TEACHERS ASSOCIATIONScience teachers attending the March 13-17, 1970
convention of the National Science Teachers Associa-tion in Cincinnati took an active interest in the AWIbooth exhibit. They personally carried away 500 cop-ies of "Humane Biology Projects," 500 copies of "FirstAid and Care of Small Animals," and 300 copies of"Studying Our Fellow Mammals," and asked that overa thousand more of these AWI manuals be sent tothem. They took considerable interest in the display en-titled, "Attitudes Toward Animals," featuring magnifi-cent color photographs loaned for the occasion by . Lifephotographer, Stan Wayman.
The ethological approach to biology teaching, empha-sizing close observation of animals in their naturalstate, was illustrated by quotations from the newlypublished, "Studies in Animal and Human Behavior,"by Konrad Lorenz, one of the founders of this disci-pline.
Photographs of the rescue of deer, sloths, anteaters,and other wild creatures flooded out by the Surinamdam built by an aluminum company, showed JohnWalsh of the International Society for the Protectionof Animals, bringing them to safety from areas wherethey faced death by starvation or drowning.
Photographs of wolves in Canada emphasized theduty of science teachers to dispell ancient prejudicesabout animals, exemplified by wolf myths which havemisrepresented this animal for centuries.
At this convention, not even one science teacher ex-pressed any disagreement with the AWI Rules Govern-ing Treatment of Animals by High School BiologyStudents : 1. Animals being observed by students mustalways be maintained in the maximum possible condi-tion of health, comfort and well-being. 2. No vertebrateanimal used for primary or secondary school teachingmay be subjected to any experiment or procedurewhich interferes with its normal health or causes itpain or distress.
HUMANE BIT CAMPAIGNIN NORTH AFRICA
Readers of the Animal Welfare Institute Informa-tion Report responded generously to the invitation tohelp pay for comfortable bits for horses and donkeysin North Africa (see Vol. 18, No. 3). Their donationsplayed an important part in making possible the re-moval of heavy, hand made iron "ring bits" which cutthe animals' tongues and chins and exchanging themfor the smooth, comfortable SPANA bits which canbe expected to last many animals throughout their life-time thus eliminating an instrument of torture fromeach of these animals' lives.
Representatives of the Society for the Protection ofAnimals in North Africa visit the Souks or markets,where the animals are hobbled, and inspect their con-dition. A few quotations from a recent report of theOrganizing Secretary, Captain D. E. H. Russell, willgive a picture of the work. "I arrived at the Khemissetsouk at about 11 a.m. on 14 October and met the Kha-lifa of Khemisset, M. Hamidou, who is clearly verywell disposed towards SPANA, making his constabu-lary available to accompany Harold Bennett and hisinfirmiers during their rounds of the souk. SPA NA isclearly supported and welcomed by the local Berbersand during the 3 hours or so that I spent going roundwith Bennett, we relieved at least 24 animals of theirnative bits replacing them on the spot with SPANAbits ; 12 or more goads were collected and broken anda good collection of permanent needle and wire goadswas rounded up. Three donkeys with badly galled backswere taken into the Khemisset dispensary. . . . On thefollowing morning Bennett and I, accompanied by In-firmier Mohar spent an hour and a half walking roundthe Meknes Medina, where we saw a good number ofdonkeys and mules already fitted with SPANA bits.In the course of the first hour we gave away a com-plete box in exchange for the bloody native ones ; twoowners of overloaded donkeys were forced to unloadwith police support and many permanent saddle goadswere removed."
SPANA works in Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria,and the bit campaign is being actively carried out inall three countries. President of SPANA in Tunisiais Dr. Hedi El Fourgi, of the Ministry of Agriculture.Dr. El Fourgi, a veterinarian, leads the work for pre-vention of cruelty to animals in this country. SPANA'sfifteen hospitals and fifty refuges are operated in co-operation with government veterinary authoritiesthroughout the Maghreb countries.
Patient and Weary — The faces of some of the Ani-mals that SPANA representatives inspect and help.
The Ring Bits — That cause painful soreness and bleed-ing — For sale with other hardware, Meknes Medina,
Morocco, February, 1970 (Upper left of photo).
The SPANA manager in Rabat, Bill Walton, inspectingand looking for patients at the Sale Souk, Morocco,
January, 1970.
Infirmier Mohar cuts away a painful old ring bit inSfassif Souk near Meknes, Morocco, February, 1970.
.26)3
Occasionally an attempt is made to cling to the old bits.Here a Berber trader at Sfassif Souk gives up a ring bitwhich he had tried to conceal. It was exchanged for a
SPANA bit.
Painful old bits in one hand, comfortable new ones inthe other, infirmier M'Barak returns to the SPANA
Refuge in Rabat after a morning's work. Morocco,February, 1970.
A grateful recipient of a SPANA bit. Khemisset Souknear Meknes, Morocco, October, 1969.
A veterinary member of the SPANA Council, John Gregg,M.R.C.V.S., fits a new bit at the Sfassif Souk, Morocco,
February, 1970.
NEW ONTARIO LAW ON RESEARCHANIMALS
The Province of Ontario passed a law in Decemberof 1%9 titled, "An Act Respecting the Care and Pro-vision of Animals for Research." This law is the re-sult of discussion extending over a period of nearly ayear, culminating in five weeks of hearings. The finalversion is very different from the original one whichcaused strong protest by the public and the OntarioHumane Society. For example, the original bill wouldhave permitted dog dealers to enter humane societyshelters and take dogs from them to sell to researchinstitutions. The Act as passed would eliminate the"random source" dog dealer entirely, substitutinglicensed breeders and pounds as sources of laboratorydogs. The small pound run by an individual dog war-den who sells animals to laboratories has been a sourceof serious mistreatment of dogs, however, and will re-quire very close supervision if abuses are to be stopped.
The new Act combines a variety of ideas on labora-tory animals. It is to be administered by the Directorof the Veterinary Services Branch of the Departmentof Agriculture and Food, with a Licensing and ReviewBoard appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Coun-cil which is authorized to hold hearings in disputedcases. One member of the Board must be a member ofthe Ontario Humane Society.
Significant requirements in the licensing of personswho supply laboratory animals include the following :"No person shall be granted a licence as an operatorof a supply facility unless he (a) is experienced in theproper care and handling of animals : and (b) possessesall pens, cages, compounds, vehicles, tools, implements,buildings and dietary materials necessary to properlycare for and handle animals on his premises." Licensesmay be suspended or revoked for failure to comply withthe regulations under the Act or for such failure withregard to "any other Act relating to cruelty, maltreat-ment or neglect of animals." These same requirements
' apply to the registration of research facilities.The Act states : "20.—(1) Every animal used in a
registered research facility in any experiment that islikely to result in pain to the animal shall be anaesthe-tized so as to prevent the animal from suffering un-necessary pain. (2) The operator of a research facilityshall provide analgesics adequate to prevent an animalfrom suffering unnecessary pain during the period ofits recovery from any procedure used in an experiment.
"21. — (1) Every person or body of persons havingcontrol of a registered research facility or facilities shallestablish in connection therewith an animal care com-mittee, one of the members of which shall be a veteri-narian.
"(2) Every animal care committee established undersubsection 1 shall be responsible for co-ordinating andreviewing,
"(a) the activities and procedures relating to thecare of animals ;
"(b) the standards of care and facilities for ani-mals
"(c) the training and qualifications of personnelthat are engaged in the care of animals ; and
"(d) procedures for the prevention of unnecessarypain including the use of anaesthetics andanalgesics,
in every research facility in connection with which theanimal care committee is established, having regard tothe requirements of this Act and the regulations.
"(3) The operator of a research facility shall, priorto conducting any research project in which animalsare to be used, file or cause to be filed, with the animalcare committee a research project proposal setting forththe nature of all procedures to be used in connectionwith such animals, the number and type of animals tobe used and the' anticipated pain level that any suchanimal is likely to experience.
"(4) Where an animal care committee has reason tobelie .(Te that there is, will be or has been an offence com-mitted against section 20 in any research facility inconnection with which it is established, the animal carecommittee shall order,
"(a) that any research in connection with such of-
fence be stopped or not proceeded with ; and"(b) that where such research has caused, in any
animal, severe pain or illness that cannot bealleviated, such animal be forthwith humanelydestroyed.
"22. — (1) The Minister shall appoint a chief in-spector who is a veterinarian and such other inspectorsas he deems necessary, and notwithstanding any otherAct, such inspectors have exclusive authority to initiateproceedings to enforce the provisions of this Act andthe regulations."
Penalties are divided between (1) those for infrac-tions of record keeping requirements for which a fineof not more than $25 for a first or $100 for a subse-quent offense may be levied, and (2) those for otherviolations which amount to not more than $500 and/orimprisonment for not more than three months for thefirst offense, and a fine of not more than $1,000 and/orimprisonment for not more than six months for a sub-sequent offense.
The final enforcement provision reads : "26. Whereit is made to appear from the material filed or evidenceadduced that any offence against this Act or the regu-lations or against any Act relating to cruelty, maltreat-ment or neglect of animals has been or is being corn-mitted by any person who is the operator of a pound,research facility or supply facility or who is employedby or associated with any such person, the SupremeCourt or a judge thereof may, upon the application ofthe Director, enjoin any such person from being en-gaged in any way in the operation of such pound, re-search facility or supply facility absolutely or for suchperiod as seems just."
If well and fairly administered, the Act should gofar to prevent cruelty and neglect in pounds, labora-tories and animal suppliers' premises. Testimony pre-sented on behalf of the Animal Welfare Institute re-quested that animals supplied from pounds should belimited in their use to non-survival experiments underfull anesthesia so that the animals could not possiblyexperience any pain or distress. However, this proposalwas not accepted by the legislature.
HEARINGS ON TULE ELK BILLS INHOUSE AND SENATE
Hearings on bills to provide a study for a nationalrefuge for the rare Tule Elk were held March 16th inthe House of Representatives and March 17th in theSenate. Senator Philip A. Hart (D., Mich.) conductedthe hearings on S. 3028 introduced by Senator AlanCranston (D., Calif.), before the Subcommittee onEnergy, Natural Resources and the Environment of theSenate Commerce Committee. Congressman JohnDingell (D., Mich.) conducted hearings on H.R. 14603introduced by Congressman George E. Brown (D.,Calif.), before the Subcommittee on Fisheries andWildlife Conservation of the House Merchant Marineand Fisheries Committee.
Major witness was Mrs. Beula Edmiston of the Com-mittee for the Preservation of the Tule Elk, whoseardent efforts to preserve the remaining members ofthis species at the state level led to an appeal to theFederal Government to resolve the issue.
An interesting fact elicited at the House hearings wasthe gift of 600,000 acres of federal land which wasdonated to the City of Los Angeles. This acreage ispart of the area in which the conflict over killing theTule Elk is most acute. A full report on the status ofthis land was requested by Chairman Dingell.
REPRINTS AVAILABLE OF NEWAWI ARTICLE IN
THE AMERICAN BIOLOGY TEACHERScience teachers and other wishing to have a copy
of "Attitudes Toward Animals," by the President ofthe Animal Welfare Institute, are invited to write tothe address on the masthead for a copy. The article,which was published in the February, 1970 issue ofThe American Biology Teacher, discusses high schoolbiology teaching with particular reference to cruel ex-periments on animals by young people.
MIS
d•■■■•64
ANIMAL WELFARE INSTITUTEScientific Committee on Humane Standards for Research Animals
Marjorie Anchel, Ph.D. Paul Kiernan, M.D. Samuel Peacock, M.D.Lee R. Dice, Ph.D. Richard G. Pearce, D.V.M.F. Barbara Orlans, Ph.D.Bennett Derby, M.D. John Walsh, M.D.
International CommitteeT. G. Antikatzides, D.V.M.—Greece David Ricardo—CanadaMajor C. W. Hume, 0.B.E., M.C., B.Sc., M.I. Biol.—United Kingdom P. Rousselet-Blanc, D.V.—FranceSydney Jennings, M.R.C.V.S., D.V.A.—Mexico N. E. Wernberg—Denmark
OfficersChristine Stevens, President Alfred R. Glancy, Jr., Vice-President Dorothy Dyce, Laboratory Animal ConsultantMadeleine Bemelmans, Secretary Roger L. Stevens, Treasurer Barbara Gould, Publications Secretary
IN
April, May, June, 1970
ANIMAL WELFARE INSTITUTEP.O. Box 3492, Grand Central Station, New York, N.Y. 10017
Volume 19, No. 2
HEARINGS HELD ON WHITEHURST BILLTO BROADEN LABORATORY ANIMAL
WELFARE ACTSpectacular change in climate of opinion has taken
place since 1965 when Congressman W. R. Poage heldthe first hearings on the bills that were destined tobecome P.L. 89-544, the Laboratory Animal WelfareAct. At that time the subject was bitterly controversial,with organized science and organized animal protec-tion at loggerheads, and subsidiary battles raging with-in the two camps as well. Five years later, the law hav-ing been well administered and honestly enforced, thegreat body of opinion from all sides supports effectivebroadening of the law as proposed in the WhitehurstBill, H.R. 13957.
Every one of the animal protective organizationswhich testified at the hearings urged enactment of thebill. Some suggested clarifying or strengthening amend-ments, but none opposed the bill or any of its contents.
The two major spokesmen for the scientific com-munity also supported the bill, and the amendmentsthey asked for were not destructive in character, norwere they put forward in a manner to preclude alter-nate proposals which could be highly beneficial toanimals.
Responding to questions by Representative CatherineMay, ranking Republican of the Subcommittee on Live-stock and Grains of the House Agriculture Committee,Dr. Maurice Visscher, President of the National So-ciety for Medical Research emphasized his agreementwith the provisions of H.R. 13957 giving all speciesof warm-blooded animals proper handling and carethroughout their stay in research facilities. He ex-pressed his approval for the requirement for "adequateveterinary , care" for animals under experimentationwhich the bill calls for. He made clear that his onlyconcern in this area was to remove a possible ambiguityby specifically stating that experimental design remainoutside the provisions of the legislation. Mrs. Maynoted that P.L. 89-544, the Laboratory Animal Wel-fare Act, has resulted in improvements in laboratoryanimal facilities and that a broadening of the law couldresult in further improvements. Dr. Visscher agreedthat this was the case. In prepared testimony he alsoexpressed support for humane standards for animalsin pet shops, exhibitions, and zoos. So did Dr. HowardA. Schneider, speaking for the Committee on PublicAffairs of the American Institute of Nutrition and asa member of the Public Affairs Committee of the Fed-eration of American Societies for Experimental Biol-ogy. Dr. Schneider ended his testimony by saying, "thepart of the scientific community I represent standsready to assist this distinguished committee, and en-dorses the broad principles of H.R. 13957."
Opposition of the 1965 type was expressed by Dr.Helen Taussig speaking for the American Heart As-
(Continued on page 2)
COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTSAPPROVES MODEL STATE LAW TO
Two years of work by the Animal Welfare Committeeof the United States Animal Health Association wascrowned with success when the Council of State Gov-ernments, at its annual May meeting, approved themodel state law to complement the Laboratory AnimalWelfare Act, P. L. 89-544. The model law would em-power state agriculture departments to set and en-force humane standards of animal husbandry for petshops, pounds, dog wardens, animal shelters, andthose animal dealers not included in P.L. 89-544 be-cause they do not engage in interstate commerce.
Copies of the model law may be obtained from theChairman of the U.S.A.H.A. Animal Welfare Com-mittee, Dr. Grant Kaley, Department of Agricultureand Markets, Division of Animal Industry, Building#8, State Campus, Albany, New York 12226.
AMATEUR MONKEY SURGERYCONTINUES UNABATED
by F. Barbara °Haus, Ph.D. & Charles F. Colao, M.D.
At Science Service's May International Science Fairin Baltimore, a 16 year old boy's exhibit described howhe surgically operated on monkeys trying to implantbrain electrodes. After applying electrical stimuli to thebrain, he concluded that "The monkey is very sensitiveto pain." A photo at his booth showed a "Monkey re-acting to shock." Earlier in the year, this unscientificproject, pompously called "Dissipation of TraumaticNeurosis by Subcortical Stimulation," won a prize ata participating local science fair in Missouri which en-titled the child the further publicity of exhibiting itto thousands of children and adults at the InternationalScience Fair.
The boy started his "experiment" by training monk-eys and rats to push levers to obtain their food. Whenthe animals had learned this, the boy applied electricshocks to the animals whenever they sought food. Bythis means he claimed he made the animals "neurotic,"and he next surgically implanted brain electrodes. Elec-tric shocks were applied again, but this time directlyinto the brain tissue. His grandiose conclusion wasthat he had "definitely provided a cure for the neu-rosis," and he wildly asserted that "Data compiled in-dicates . . . [that] ESB [electronic stimulation of thebrain] could be used in the space program to helpastronauts during the long periods of time which lag..."
In full compliance with Science Service's currentguidelines on animal use, many other high school chil-dren attempted animal surgery although it was obviousthat they were ill-versed in the requisite techniques,misunderstood the pathological states with which theywere dealing and animals' responses to pain. On showwas a teenager's project describing how the donormouse for skin transplants "died from being sewed uptoo many times" and how the student, unsuccessful insurgery, found "all baby mice dead." Heart and pan-creas transplants were undertaken by other noviceexperimenters.
There were several projects involving induction ofcancer in small animals despite the animal sufferinginvolved and past warnings in teacher's journals thatsuch projects pose a health hazard to the students.Since the thalidomide case, it has become common forventuresome youths to administer harmful, toxic sub-stances to pregnant animals. In one such project, a17 year old from Kansas so mistreated pregnant rab-bits that they developed large abscesses, became blind,and produced malformed, undersized babies, two ofwhich were named "Scabby Baby" and "Minibaby."
A "supervised" youngster from Alabama, in a pro-ject entitled "Pericarditis," paralyzed and killed chickensby feeding them improper diets. Another young stu-dent wanted to find the "maximum safe" temperaturefor animals and, accordingly, heated ten mice until onedied a slow death over the course of two hours. A boyfrom a Catholic school in West Virginia called his pro-ject "Some Visible Physiological and Behavioral Ef-fects of Drugs on Mice." The visible effects he notedafter administering Valium to mice were that the re-sulting neck tumors enlarged to become "as big asthe mouse" and that these impedimental growths madeit impossible for animals to walk properly. The micefinally died after suffering the tumors five months.
(Continued on page 2)
NEW YORKER MAGAZINE EXPOSESFEDERAL POISONING OF WILDLIFE
In a thoroughly researched article on the black-footedferret (an endangered species) and the prairie dog,Faith McNulty gives a profoundly shocking accountof the massive federal poisoning programs which de-cimate wild animals in the West. All conservationistsand humanitarians should read the article, "The Prai-rie Dog and the Black-footed Ferret," in the June 13,1970 issue of The New Yorker.
Amateur Monkey Surgery Continues Unabated(Continued from page 1)
This unexhausted list of juvenile experiments is suf-ficient to demonstrate that, unlike the WestinghouseScience Talent Search, which set an excellent prece-dent this year of exhibiting no inhumane projects, thestandards of animal use at the 1970 International Sci-ence Fair are still intolerable. The consistent failureof three different sets of guidelines which the Inter-national Science Fair has used in the last three yearsis mainly attributable to their reliance on adult super-vision to curb unsavory projects. Evidently, it is notdifficult for youngsters to produce signatures of "Super-visors" who either do not know or do not object to theanimal suffering inflicted. Noticeable efforts were madethis year to implement the supervision requirementsbut significant improvements were not thereby effected.Although any strengthening of rules governing studentanimal work is welcome, it is doubtful if further ef-forts aimed merely at improving supervision will beadequate to make the changes so urgently needed. Sci-ence fairs are, by their nature, competitive and extra-curricular, and both these factors mitigate against hav-ing adult supervisors. A moral sense of fairness makesyoungsters want to submit their own rather than theirsupervisor's work, and, furthermore, so long as ani-mal experimentation is tolerated and encouraged inchildren's homes, rules dependent upon supervision willsurely fail. Guidelines are needed which introduce anew basic concept, not dependent solely upon super-vision.
Changes are also needed in the guidelines' state-ment that "An experiment in nutritional deficiencymay proceed only to the point where symptoms of thedeficiency appear. Appropriate measures shall then betaken to correct the deficiency, if such action is feasible,or the animal (s) shall be killed by a humane method."This rule has remained virtually the same for over tenyears although it is both unworkable and unenforced.Most teenagers and many teachers, inexperienced inpathological observation, cannot identify this "point"when symptoms appear and often continue deficientdiets until the animal becomes blind or cannot walk.Such examples were encountered in a characteristicparticipating local science fair which exhibited experi-ments of starving rats (to show that they did notgrow) and of nutritionally deprived hamsters and micewhich died or cannibalized their cagemates. To requireeuthanasia is unrealistic since neither the teachers northe youngsters have the knowledge or equipment for it.
One of the better provisions of the current guide-lines states that, for most student experiments, it ispreferable to use protista and other invertebrates thanhigher animals. Unfortunately, Science Service has notsought to implement this rule. Thus, at the Interna-tional Science Fair only 37 projects were countedwhich used live invertebrates whereas 65 used warmor cold blooded vertebrates. Many of these youngsterswho studied insects observed and described their normallife cycles and characteristics whereas, in contrast, veryfew of those who studied mammals described normalphysiological states. In mammalian studies the empha-sis was overwhelmingly on painful and often lethalpathological conditions. Thus, of the 38 projects whichwere encountered on small mammals, 26 involved in-flicting harm or painful death.Changes Advocated
Fresh efforts and fresh thinking are needed to elimi-nate monkey surgery and other unsuitable animal ex-perimentation by high school students. One rule whichhas found favor iwith several scientific societies and hasbeen adopted by some school boards and science com-petitions is that pre-university students should not in-flict pain on vertebrate animals. This rule strikes atthe heart of the problem, which is animal pain, andhas, therefore, proved workable. Many educational ex-periments can be conducted on higher animals withoutcausing them pain and these, of course, should be wellsupervised.
In organizing a fair, greater care is needed in select-ing judges who will reflect humane attitudes. Localhumane societies and veterinarians can help in thisrespect. Scientific societies, national organizations, andfederal services which participate in junior competi-tions, have a serious responsibility to see that projectsinvolving animal harm are not undertaken. Organizersof competitions and educators of youth have an obliga-tion to see that student projects are wholesome educa-tional experiences and to spread an understanding ofthe boundaries of humane animal experimentation.
The same pattern is seen at local science fairs wherethe crudity of animal work is even more evident than
at the International Science Fair which exhibits onlyprize-winning projects. Hundreds of participating localscience fairs use the Science Service animal guidelines,but humane standards are -frequently appalling. Typi-cally, youngsters work alone in home basements, feed-ing small animals nutritionally deficient diets, or giv-ing them alcohol .instead of water, or killing them withcigarette smoke. Guidelines, to be workable, must getthrough to these local levels and must be simple enoughto be readily comprehended.-Hearings Held On Whitehurst Bill To Broaden
Laboratory Animal Welfare Act(Continued from page 1)
sociation who claimed that the bill would impose "avery heavy burden on medical research." She said that"medical research should not grind to a standstill" andurged that the money for inspection of laboratories begiven to the laboratories themselves "for updating faci-lities." Congressman Graham Purcell, Chairman of theSubcommittee, asked Dr. Taussig for figures on thecost of inspection she was speaking of, but she saidshe did not know what they were and that the Ameri-can Association for Accreditation of Laboratory Ani-mal Care (AAALAC) would tell him.
This negative attitude was more than balanced byexcellent testimony by Dr. Bennett M. Derby, a mem-ber of the 'Scientific Committee of the Animal WelfareInstitute. Dr. Derby stated in part : "I am AssociateProfessor of Clinical Neurology at the New York Un-versity School of Medicine and Chief of the NeurologyService and Neuropathologist at the New York Vet-erans Administration Hospital. . . . Prior legislationhas provided supervision of the standard of care of ani-mals housed in research facilities. This supervision in-cludes the right of unannounced inspection of the ani-mals, the facilities and the methods of care. Not pro-vided has been similar supervision of the standard ofcare of animals on whom research is being carriedout .- . No artificial barrier to inspection should existbetween groups of animals in the same facility . . .experimental animals need even more supervision, andcontinuing supervision, than do animals awaiting re-search. To make an exception of such animals fromthe requirement that they have an adequate standardof care, open to inspection would deprive the verygroup that needs our best attention, from the benefitsof supervision of standards of care."
Referring to the veterinarians of the U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture's Animal Health Division who doall laboratory inspections under P.L. 89-544, Dr. Derbysaid ,"Veterinarians are skilled in the medical needs ofanimals, sick as well as healthy, and are trained in thecare of all species. When these specialists are alreadyentering research facilities for inspection, there seemsno reason to draw the line between non-research andexperimental animals, or between the cat and dog andthe remainder of the warm-blooded species. For thesereasons I urge support of H.R. 13957."
Mrs. Dorothy Dyce, Animal Welfare InstituteLaboratory Animal Consultant, testified : "Visiting alarge Midwest university medical school, I foundthe dogs not yet on experiment housed in bright newstainless steel cages which meet the requirement ofP.L. 89-544. However, the dogs on experimentation,which far exceed the number of new animals, are housedin old metal cages which, in many instances, are muchtoo small for the large dogs." Mrs. Dyce emphasizedcruelty in importation of exotic animals for the petand exhibition trade as well as laboratory use. "Manyof the animals ..." she said, "are sold to roadside zoos.Last year 140,858 mammals were imported into thiscountry—of this number, 124,440 were primates des-tined for pet shops, zoos, circuses and research labora-tories. Many of them die of exposure, starvation, thirst,overcrowding and fear. The dead and injured are simplyand matter-of-factly separated from the living I'veheard the pitiful cries of infant monkeys torn from thebodies of their mothers who had been brutally killedby their captors. Peering into the darkened shippingcrates I saw tiny monkeys, barely able to eat by them-selves, huddled together in terror. Touring some Miamipet shops I saw these tiny monkeys for sale. The petdealers turn their backs on the wanton killing of themother to get the infant because baby woolly monkeyssell for $150 and up...."
Persons who wish to read the full testimony pre-sented at the hearings may write to the Committee onAgriculture, House of Representatives, 'Washington,D.C. requesting a copy of the Hearings on H.R. 13957,June 8 and 9, 1970 before the Subcommittee on Live-stock and Grains.
\;proir
NATURE PROTECTION ACTINTRODUCED BY SENATOR CRANSTONSenator Alan Cranston . (D., Calif.) introduced S.
3888, May 27, 1970, to broaden the first (1966) En-dangered Species Act, protecting domestic wildlife byincluding rare as well as endangered species amongthose which may not be hunted, captured, killed, taken,transported, sold or purchased. Further, it would pro-hibit any person, State or political subdivision thereoffrom paying or offering to pay a bounty for any of thefish or wildlife listed.
S. 3888 would fulfill an international treaty obligationundertaken by the United States in 1941 : The Conven-tion on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservationin the Western Hemisphere. The treaty, Senator Cran-ston points out, has been binding on the United Statessince that time, but to enforce its provisions in ourdomestic courts, Congress must enact enabling legis-lation.
PROTEST AGAINST TREATMENT OF ELKThe following letter received by the .AWI speaks
for itself :A recent issue of one of our local newspapers, The
News-Gazette, carried a photograph of "Monique thespace elk," wearing a large and cumbersome "electroniccollar." The short article accompanying the photographinformed us that the elk had been shot with a tran-quilizer on Thursday and had been found dead onTuesday. The experiment, as it was called, was ap-parently undertaken to "determine winter migrationhabits" of a 7,000-head elk herd on the National ElkRefuge near Jackson, Wyoming. A Don Redfearn,spokesman for the group conducting the "experiment,"was quoted as saying that "for the last couple of daysMonique had disassociated herself from the rest of theherd, and didn't appear to be up and feeding. Thisseems to be a symptom of those who die of pneumonia."
I do not object, in principle, to the attachment ofmarkers, transmitters, or recording devices to ani-mals for the purpose of studying their behavior orphysiology. There is much information that cannot beobtained in any other way. What I do object to is theuse of devices which, by their size, weight, shape, ormethod of attachment strongly bias results obtainedfrom their use by inflicting pain or otherwise inter-f erring seriously with the normal biological activity ofthe organism with which they are associated. In thepresent case, I wonder how much attention was givento the possible effect of the "electronic collar" on theindividual and social behavior of the animal to whichit was attached. From the photograph and descriptionof the device, I think that it might produce consider-able physiological stress and, perhaps more importantly,that it would significantly interfere with social inter-actions of the elk.
It is incredible to me that our government shouldcondone, let alone finance, such an awkward, cruel, andnonsensical "experiment" as the one described here.The whole episode has many of the attributes of a glori-fied high school Science Fair project. If scientists arereally interested in studying the movement of the elk,there are much more direct and effective means of do-ing so. If they are interested in exploiting satellites asa means of communication, let them do it in a moreefficient, scientifically meaningful, and humane way. Asa tax payer I object to this grandstand play for pub-licity on the part of both the National Elk Refuge andthe Goddard Space Center. As a biologist I find the"experiment" naive, crude, and cruel. Furthermore, Iam insulted by Mr. Don Redfearn's casual explanationof the elk's separation from the herd and failure to feedas a specific symptom of pneumonia, the presumedcause of death. I rather imagine that separation fromthe herd and failure to feed is associated, in elk andmany other animals, with impending death, whateverthe cause.
Speaking as a private citizen and as a professionalbiologist I urge you to call this matter to the atten-tion of officials who are in a position to investigate thisproject and, if possible, to bring such practices as at-taching a 23-pound object to the neck of an elk for thepurpose of bouncing signals off an orbiting satellite toa sudden halt. This sort of "science" can only have anadverse effect on legitimate ecological research projectsdependent on public sympathy and understanding fortheir support.
Sincerely yours,Richard B. SelanderProfessor of EntomologyUniversity of Illinois
U.S.D.A LABORATORY ANIMALS STAFFSPONSORS TRAINING COURSES
The second annual series of regional training courseshas just been completed by the U.S. Department ofAgriculture's Laboratory Animals Staff. The week-long courses - focus on workshop problems encounteredin inspections and in obtaining compliance with thestandards under the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act.
Mrs. Robert Dyce, Animal Welfare Institute Labora-tory Animal Consultant, spoke at the course held inPhoenix, Arizona in early April. Showing photographsand slides of mistreatment of animals by dealers andresearch institutions prior to enactment of the Labora-tory Animal Welfare Act, P.L. 89-544, she empha-sized the important changes in facilities for the housingof animals which have resulted from enforcement ofthe law and the continuing need for thorough follow-up on the actual care of the animals and the way inwhich they are handled from day to day.
CAGE MANUFACTURER JOINSCONSERVATION EFFORT
The March, 1970 "Pocket Planner" issued by theResearch Equipment Company of Bryan, Texas, car-ried the following message :
Help Protect Our Diminishing Species!The use of nonhuman primates (monkeys, chim-
panzees, baboons, apes, etc.) as subjects in bio-medical research has increased greatly in recentyears.
Because the world's resources of nonhuman pri-mates are exhaustible and some are already seri-ously threatened, any use of these animals in bio-medicine should be based upon valid scientificrationale.
For the reasons given above, nonhuman primatesought to be investigated in minimum significantnumbers in carefully designed experiments. An ef-fort ought to be made to derive as much scientificinformation from each animal subject as is hum-anely reasonable and scientifically compatible.
When feasible, an investigator may wish tocheck with the Science Information Exchange,1730 M Street NW., Washington, D.C. 20036,to find out whether parallel or similar work hasbeen published.
DECISION FAVORS THE CONDOR,AN ENDANGERED SPECIES
The following Associated Press story, February 8,1970, appeared under the heading, "Only 50 of SpeciesLeft. Water Plans Voided as Peril to Condors," inthe Sunday Star, Washington, D.C.
FILLMORE, Calif. (AP) — Plans for an $89million water project have been suspended by theInterior Department to head off a threat to thenearly extinct California condor.
Only about 50 of the huge, vulture-like birds arestill alive and scientists said the water projectwould have frightened them from nesting places inSespe Creek, north of Los Angeles County. Somescientists described the condor as North America'sonly link with the Pleistocene, a glacial era abouttwo million years ago.
E. Domingo Hardison, chairman of the VenturaCounty Water Conservation District, disclosed thatthe Interior Department had decided against theproject.
"It seems the birds are more valuable to the en-tire world than water is to Ventura County,"Hardison said Friday.
Hardison said he was "not pleased with this de-cision," but felt it was inevitable. "I was quite surethe project would be blocked in every degree," hesaid.
He said only intervention by President Nixoncould alter the decision not to present the waterproject proposal to Congress.
Quoting from an Interior Department report, hesaid the district was told
"Because of the inherent danger the projectposes for the rare California condor and the prevail-ing delicate ecological balance of the Sespe Sanctu-ary and adjoining creek drainage, the Bureau ofSport Fisheries and Wildlife had concluded thatthe project should not be authorized for construc-tion."
Since female condors lay at trlost one egg everyother year and because parent birds will abandonan egg if frightened, scientists fear that upsettingthe environment could be disastrous to the birds'breeding habits. Condors have favored Sespe Creeknesting places for many years.2 Lo7
FLORIDA SUCCUMBS TO BULLFIGHTINTERESTS
The State of Florida has permitted drastic weaken-ing of its anti-cruelty laws, the only State in the Unionvoting to exempt so-called "Bloodless" bullfighting,rodeos and trained animal acts from the anti-crueltystatutes. The seriousness of this backward step wasunderlined in a Christian Science Monitor editorial,May 16, 1970, which under the heading "The 'blood-less' wedge," stated in part, "The simulated bullfighthas not always proven to be as 'bloodless' as that termwould imply. In any case, the animal is physicallygoaded into a fight, which is in itself a form of cruelty.Moreover, any extension of this modified form of bull-fighting is driving the wedge a little deeper for theentry of the all-out bullfight. But the most serious as-pect of the Florida legislation is its complete removalof any legal restraint from three areas of animal ex-ploitation where cruelty can all too easily occur."
Mainly responsible for this retrogression, accordingto the St. Petersburg Times, was industrialist JimWalter of Tampa who wants to build an arena in YborCity.
The caliber of the entrepreneurs can be grasped froma column by the Sports Editor of the Tampa Tribune,May 29, 1970, who attributes the speed with whichthe bill was passed to the lobbying of Walter, accom-panied by the Mayor of Tampa and a hand-kissingrestaurant owner named Cesar Gonzmart. Accordingto the column, "A replica of an old Spanish city is tobe built, a castle-like motel across from the Columbia(3Y2 million dollars) and an arena for bloodless bull-fights." It quotes the Mayor of Tampa as follows : "I amconvinced that it was Gonzmart's courtly manners tothe secretaries, wives and other ladies about in the hallsof the State's legislative buildings in Tallahassee thatkeyed our securing approval of the bullfight bill in all-record time, less than three clays. Walter and I wentahead from room to room plugging for the bill andbehind us came Gonzmart in his Edwardian attire, andglad eye and continental manners, kissing every femalehand in sight. The halls echoed with the sound ofCesar's kisses and the accompanying heel-clicks..."
Governor Claude Kirk ignored the thousands ofwires and letters from humanitarians asking him toveto the bill. He took no action at all, and it becamelaw without his signature. Determined efforts for re-peal are now underway, led by a small new group,Floridians, Against Bullfights, headed by Mrs. ArthurKarp and Mrs. Conon Swann. The Florida legislaturehas adjourned for the year ; however, a repeal bill forthe 1971 session will be strongly supported.
ALASKA MOVES TOWARDPROTECTION OF BEARS
According to a New York Times report by WalterSullivan, May 7, 1970, "Oil prospecting activities on thetreeless North Slope of Alaska have so decimated thegrizzly bears of the region, one of the last large reser-voirs of the species, that Alaskan officials have elimin-ated this year's spring hunting season. The season wouldhave run from May 15 to May 31.
"In addition, the officials have also curtailed thehunting of polar bears. This action followed an inter-national conference on polar bears, held recently inMorges, Switzerland, at which it was disclosed thatthe polar bear population was barely holding its ownagainst airborne hunters."
The article reports Charles J. Keim, a licensed guideand dean of the College of Arts and Letters at theUniversity of Alaska, as stating that the animals are"in desperate stl-aits." He expressed outrage over air-borne hunting of polar bears and wolves. Two planesare used to hunt the bears. One carries the hunterwh6 lands and waits for the other plane to harrass thebear and drive him to exhaustion so he no longer evenhas the strength to rear up and threaten the hunterby the time he has been driven within range of the gun.These practices would be ended if the Saylor-Nelsonbills were law. (See Information Report, Vol. 19, No. 1)
STATE OF VIRGINIA PROHIBITSSORING OF WALKING HORSES
Governor Linwood Holton of Virginia signed intolaw on April sixth a bill making it illegal to deliver,receive or show a sore walking horse in that State.
A bill for the same purpose introduced in the Ohiolegislature went to hearings but has not been passed.
At the Federal level, the Tydings Bill, S. 2543, toprohibit soring, was sent to the House Interstate andForeign Commerce Committee after passing the Senatelast December, Hearings have not yet been scheduledby the Committee.
NEW YORK STATE LEADS WITH STRONGENDANGERED SPECIES LAWS
Two important endangered species bills were signedinto law in New York State on May 20th by GovernorNelson Rockefeller.
The first, (CH 1047) complements the Federal En-dangered Species Act by restricting the possession, saleand transportation of endangered species within thestate. The second (CH 1048) though not as broad ismuch stronger with respect to particular species namedin the body of the law itself. Its author, AssemblymanEdwyn E. Mason, Chairman of the Agriculture Com-mittee, stated : "New York State is now the first statein the nation to have enacted endangered species legis-lation which specifically earmarks animals to be pro-tected." Six months after enactment, the law prohibitsthe sale, or offering for sale, of leopard, clouded leopard,snow leopard, tiger, cheetah, vicuna, polar bear, andall crocodilian products. Eighteen months after enact-ment, the sale of mountain lion, jaguar, ocelot, margay,and red wolf products will also be outlawed.
By naming specific animals, the question of whichones are considered to be endangered is not subject todebate. Herbert H. Mills, Executive Director of theWorld Wildlife Fund has stated, "For some reason,scientists are reluctant to list an animal as endangeredunless it's about to take its last cough. In our view, allthe spotted cats are in danger of being wiped out, yet,the Red Data Book lists only a few subspecies."
An editorial in The New York Times, May 15, 1970,urging the Governor to sign the Mason Bill noted that"Federal designations . . . lean so heavily on the Inter-national Red Book's directory of nearly extinct speciesthat no cat that has even been seen in the past tenyears appears on the Interior Department's list of en-dangered animals."
Assemblyman Mason's law is strongly supported bythe Board of Trustees of the National Parks of Kenyawhose director, P.M. Olindo, wrote to give "maximumsupport" to the bill when it was being considered bythe New York State legislature. He stated in part :"We feel that it is appropriate for the American publicto know that many illegal methods used to secure thecheetah, leopard and other pelts in this region consti-tute extreme cruelty to animals. In wire snares, ani-mals languish for clays on end, and they are frequentlynot even recovered. Today we are faced with a chemi-cal warfare against the animals . . . the cats are poi-soned to avoid making holes in the pelts, thereby fetch-ing high prices on the international markets. Othercarnivores, including birds of prey, fall victim to thepoisoned meat and are, of course, useless for this out-rageous market...
"The second reason why the Kenya National Parks'Trustees fully support this Bill is that we have re-cently suffered the loss of one of our most outstandingrangers ; another one was critically injured in the sameaction against an armed gang of poachers and is stillin the hospital. The absence of markets, which Bill No.7341 aims to achieve, will also safeguard the lives ofour men, who are all dedicated conservationists.
"We are confident that your deliberations will besuccessful and, please, let us request the passage ofeffective legislation on behalf of Eastern African Wild-life ; and further that bilateral discussions betweenStates of your Union be initiated to convert the ex-ample being made by the State of New York into'National Action'..."
ANIMAL WELFARE INSTITUTEScientific Committee on Humane Standards for Research Animals
Marjorie Anchel, Ph.D. Paul Kiernan, M.D. Samuel Peacock, M.D.Lee R. Dice, Ph.D.Richard G. Pearce, D.V.M.F. Barbara Orlans, Ph.D.Bennett Derby, M.D. John Walsh, M.D.
International CommitteeT. G. Antikatzides, D.V.M.—GreeceMajor C. W. Hume, 0.B.E., MC., B.Sc., M.I. Biol.—United KingdomSydney Jennings, M.R.C.V.S., D.V.A.—Mexico
OfficersChristine Stevens, President Alfred R. Glancy, Jr., Vice-PresidentMadeleine Bemelmans, Secretary Roger L. Stevens, Treasurer
David Ricardo—CanadaP. Rousselet-Blanc. D.V.—FranceN. E. Wernberg—Denmark
P.O. Box 3492, Grand Central Station, New York, N.Y. 10017
July, August, September, 1970 Vol. 19, No. 3
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURETAKES LEGAL ACTION AGAINST
VIOLATORS OF LABORATORY ANIMALWELFARE ACT
Animal Dealer Faces Revocation of LicenseAn interstate dog dealer, whose business is one of
the biggest if not the biggest in sales to laboratories inthe whole country, has been charged by the U.S. De-partment of Agriculture with violating the LaboratoryAnimal Welfare Act, P.L. 89-544.
Michael L. Kredovsky, who operates the Lone TrailKennels in Friedensburg, Pennsylvania, denies that hisemployees transported dogs in an over-crowded truck.If found guilty, Mr. Kredovsky faces revocation of hisdealer's license ; the Act holds the employer respon-sible for actions of his employees.
The case arose when an Ohio court found two ofMr. Kredovsky's employees, Paul Anthony and AndyBall, guilty of cruelty to animals. They had been ap-prehended while transporting some 150 dogs in en-closures which were not large enough to ensure eachanimal sufficient space to turn about freely, stand erect,and lie in a natural position. The animals were beingmoved from various pounds in Ohio to Mr. Anthony'sKiser Lake Kennels near Saint Paris, Ohio. Mr.Anthony subsequently gave up his dealer's license, buthis kennels are now designated as a holding facilityunder Mr. Kredovsky's license.
110 Dog Dealers Out of BusinessThe Laboratory Animal Welfare Act directs the Sec-
retary of Agriculture to regulate the transportation,handling, and sale in interstate commerce of dogs andcats, and to provide and enforce standards for thehumane treatment of dogs, cats, hamsters, monkeys,rabbits, and guinea pigs used in research. The Act isadministered by the Animal Health Division of U.S.D.A.'s Agricultural Research Service.
In enforcing the Act, U.S.D.A. has uncovered num-erous suspected violations. Many of the cases have beenresolved without the need for court action. However,U.S.D.A. has found it necessary to file charges insome cases and is still investigating others. Over 110dealers went out of business during the first threeyears of the program—many of them because they didnot care to, or could not, comply with U.S.D.A. re-quirements for dealing in dogs and cats.
Senators Alan Cranston (D., Calif.), Warren G.Magnuson (D., Wash.) and William B. Spong, Jr.(D., Va.) introduced S. 4344 to broaden and strengthenthe Laboratory Animal Welfare Act, P.L. 89544, onSeptember 14th.
The bill is similar to H.R. 18637, introduced byCongressman Thomas S. Foley (D., Wash.), a mem-ber of the Subcommittee on Livestock and Grains ofthe House Agriculture Committee, following hearingsheld in June on H.R. 13957, introduced by Congress-man G. William Whitehurst (R., Va.).
In introducing S. 4344, Senator Cranston said, "Mypurpose in introducing this bill is to demonstrate in-terest and support for the legislation in this body, andto enable the Commerce Committee to commence itsdeliberative process with the hope of speeding con-sideration of the House bill when it is sent to this body.
"Generally, this bill expands the provisions of the1966 act to include exhibitors of animals, private orpublic, including zoos and circuses, and to dealers inthe wholesale pet business. The bill extends coverageto all warm-blooded animals. Research facilities, dealersand exhibitors are required to maintain records of alldogs, cats and animals not indigenous to the United
(cont. on page 2)
BILL TO STOP SORING OFWALKING HORSES APPROVED BY
JARMAN SUBCOMMITTEEFollowing hearings September 21, 1970 on S. 2543,
the Horse Protection Act, and more than twenty simi-lar or identical bills, a House Interstate and ForeignCommerce Subcommittee chaired by the Hon. JohnJarman (D. Okla.) reported the bill with minor amend-ments to the full Committee on October sixth.
The bill, passed by the Senate in December of 1969,would prohibit the cruel "soring" of walking horsesfor shows. The extent of this abomination is well il-lustrated in testimony given by John 0. Kirby, a reg-istered horse show judge and steward and a gradu-ate of the horseshoeing course at the California Poly-technical Institute. He has judged 102 shows in 11different states. He said in part : "I love good walk-ing horses. They are a sturdy, substantial breed ofgood temperament and even disposition. If they werenot so docile and well mannered, they would not takethe abuse that they do. There is no way a walkinghorse can escape if his trainer is burning him. If ahorse has a lot of courage and will stand pain well,then the trainer merely applies a greater amount ofthe burning agent or leaves it on longer. . . . I haveseen owners and trainers in broad daylight pouringcaustic into open wounds preparing a horse to show.This is very common. After the horse is sore from thechemical burn he is very loath to move. Loose bootsthat flop on the pastern are placed on the horse tofurther irritate the sores. Several minutes before theclass starts the horse is made to move by whips, elec-tric spurs, etc. After a few minutes of walking, thehorse tolerates the pain, under pressure from the rider,so he moves well, but still with his center of gravitymoved backward. This causes a long stride behind anda free-wheeling, light footed high action in front.''
Mr. Kirby made it clear why soring will never bestopped without federal legislation to prohibit it. "Thereare many men judging horse shows that cannot affordto enforce the rules where cruelty is concerned. Mostneed the money. In addition the trainer they disqualifytonight might be judging them next week. . . . Thepractice of deliberately making walking horses soreis a very effective training and showing tool. It re-quires no skill or effort to apply. It has been wide-
Action Taken Against CaliforniaResearch Laboratory
On July seventh, U.S.D.A. reported on legal actiontaken against a California research laboratory to pre-vent mistreatment of animals in violation of the Act.The Department had charged the laboratory, the Na-tional Institute 'of Scientific Research, Inc., of LosAngeles, California, with failure to provide minimumcare as directed in standards published by the De-
r'', partinent.In an out-of-court settlement, the laboratory neither
admitted nor denied the charges but consented to theissuance of an order containing findings of fact andconclusions based upon the allegations set forth in thecomplaint. These charges included : housing dogs indirty, unsafe enclosures ; failing to adequately feed andwater the clogs ; and failing to provide adequate veterin-ary medical care.
This "cease and desist" order became effective 15clays after issuance and remains in effect permanently.If the laboratory knowingly fails to obey the order, itshall be subject to a civil penalty of $500 for each of-fense and each day during which such failure continuesshall be considered a separate offense.
spread for more than ten years. Now it is the acceptedway of mass-producing young show horses in the walk-ing horse breed."
Soring tortures the individual horse and is under-mining the breed. Even the colors of the horses arebeing affected. Mr. Kirby notes, "Walking horses usedto be brightly colored roans, white, etc. Now they arealmost all black or bays with black points, so the chemi-cal burning practices can be done without detection."The sores are sometimes covered with black shoe polish.
Numerous spokesmen for the walking horse industrytestified at the hearings urging the committee to "deferaction on this matter or report an unfavorable recom-mendation as to the passage of Senate Bill No. 2543of the 91st Congress." These were the words of WinkGroover, Vice-President of the Walking Horse TrainersAssociation and rider of the horse that won the grandchampionship walking horse stake this September.
Testifying in favor of federal legislation, WendellRawls, reporter for The Nashville Tennessean, stated"Soring is still practiced by almost every trainer in theindustry, and such influential trainers as Wink Groover,trainer and rider of Champion Walking Horse of theWorld, Ace's Sensation, and Jack Moorman, presidentof the trainers' association, candidly told me they stillfeel they must sore their horses in order to compete."The Nashville Tennessean has carried an excellent ser-ies of articles on these horses for the past two years.The Editor, John Seigenthaler, in a statement to theSubcommittee, said, "... we believe that federal legis-lation is needed. It is needed now."
Leading the fight for the legislation was 1VIrs. PaulTwyne, President of the American Horse ProtectionAssociation. Organizations backing S. 2543 at the hear-ings included the Animal Welfare Institute, Society forAnimal Protective Legislation, Washington HumaneSociety, Humane Society of the United States, Friends
, of Animals, and the American Veterinary MedicalAssociation.
Cranston-Magnuson-Spong Bill ForWarm-Blooded Animals
(cant. from page 1)
States. Licensing of operators of dog and cat auctionsales is provided."
Like the Foley bill, the Cranston-Magnuson-Spongbill covers the care of research animals throughout theirentire stay in the laboratory, including appropriate useof analgesic and tranquilizing drugs.
Copies of some editorials which have appeared insupport of the legislation are reprinted below.
THE COURIER-JOURNAL, Louisville, KentuckySaturday, August 22, 1970. Founded 1826.
SILENT VOICES CAN BE HEARDIN CONGRESS
A SILENT LOBBY has been at work in Washington inrecent years. It consists of animals without number which havesuffered needless torture in experimental laboratories, in meatpacking plants and in pet shops. These sad witnesses cannotdescribe their agonies to members of Congress. They can speakonly to the inner ear of conscience.
Of course they have had some dedicated human interpreters,such as the Society for Animal Protective Legislation. Andonce these messengers have called attention to the plight ofcreatures without the power of speech, Congress has respondedquite remarkably.
At first, there was a false idea that agitation to protectlaboratory animals was simply an anti-vivsection drive, whichwould curb animal experiments useful to the human race. Thatcloud has largely been dispelled. The Laboratory Animal Wel-fare Act, passed id 1966, has been generally accepted as a boonto the dumb beasts and no real handicap to scientists. Theearlier Humane Slaughter Act did not hurt the packing in-dustyy, as had been predicted, while assuring a quick and merci-ful death to the animals in the slaughter pens.
When Congress comes back from its recess on Sept. 8, itmay hear yet another cry for help from the "silent lobby." TheLivestock and Grains Subcommittee of the House AgricultureCommittee will consider final action on two good measures,the Foley and Whitehurst bills.
The proposed action would advance the 1966 Laboratory Actto include the use of tranquillizers to alleviate pain, when suchuse of drugs would not interfere with the purpose of an ex-periment. The protective arm of federal law would be extended,too, to animals in roadside zoos, circuses, and in pet dealers'cages.
A combination of the Foley and Whitehurst bills would seembest to serve the cause of humanity to animals. The plea ofthe speechless must once again be transmitted through humanagents. Those who are willing to speak out for creatures whosuffer in silence can address the members of the subcommitteethrough its chairman, Rep. Graham Purcell of Texas, at theHouse Office Building in Washington.
THE EVENING STAR, Washington, D.C.August 22, 1970
UNFINISHED BUSINESSBy long-standing tradition, the Congress of the United States
rarely does today what it can put off until tomorrow. As theend of a session nears, harried lawmakers face the harvest oftheir procrastination. They labor late to enact vital legislation.Anything rated less than mandatory is lost in the pre-adjourn-ment shuffle.
This year promises to be no exception. And among themeasures that must be listed by possible candidates for legis-lative limbo are a number of amendments to the LaboratoryAnimal Welfare Act of 1966.
The proposed amendments, carried in separate bills offeredby Representatives Whitehurst of Virginia and Foley of Wash-ington, appear to be expendable. Considering the social, eco-nomic and foreign crises that are shouted in the daily head-lines, a concern for the welfare of animals might even be con-sidered a frivolous waste of congressional attention in the brieftime that will remain when the House returns from its pre-election recess.
If so, the matter should be given a second look.The act of 1966 made important progress toward the goal
of assuring humane treatment for the animals used in scientificexperimentation. It provided some curbs to the business ufstealing pets for the laboratory market. But there were areasleft uncovered and some loopholes in the law through whichunscrupulous dealers and laboratories continue to trade. Theamendments would correct those flaws. They would extendthe provisions of the act to cover zoos, circuses and roadsideexhibits. They would require the use of tranquilizers and pain-killers whenever such drugs would not interfere with thevalidity of the experiment.
The passage would make few headlines. The proposedamendments involve no major expenditures, no sweeping re-forms, no dramatic confrontation of opposing political philoso-phies. The measure would serve only to make a brief life,sacrificed to the medical advancement of humanity, a bit morebearable. It represents only a minimal recognition of the obli-gation for compassion that must accompany man's mastery overhis fellow creatures.
THE SACRAMENTO BEE, Sacramento, Calif.September 10, 1970
EXPAND ANIMAL PROTECTION ACTThe strength of a modern civilization of ten can be judged
by the steps it takes to avoid undue cruelty to dumb animals.Four years ago Congress took such a step by enacting theLaboratory Animal Welfare Act, designed to uphold the prin-ciple the preservation of human life and the advancement ofhuman knowledge should not be accomplished by needlesslyinflicting pain.
This year there is a campaign in Congress to expand theact to include protection for animals in circuses, zoos and thepet industry. The campaign rates the support of all human-itarians.
Rep. G. William Whitehurst of Virginia is sponsor of theexpansion bill and he has been joined by Rep. Thomas Foleyof Washington. Their proposal would greatly reduce sufferingof animals in laboratories by requiring the use of tranquilizingdrugs as comprising part of the "adequate veterinary care"which is currently in the law.
The measure also would establish annual reports by registeredresearch facilities to show "professionally acceptable standardsgoverning the care and use of animals are being followed."
Sponsors of the legislation believe the coverage of animalsin roadside and other zoos and circuses is badly needed anddo not propose to affect small local pet shops.
Research scientists using animals for the purpose of humanbetterment used to be opposed to all legislation regarding theiractivities. But the 1966 act has paved the way for acceptanceof reasonable requirements.
Now it is important the Congress broaden the protection ofanimals to those not covered by present law. The Whitehurstand Foley proposal are not aimed at research or exhibitionsbut at senseless cruelty.
THE DENVER POST, Denver, ColoradoSeptember 25, 1970
HUMANE ADDITIONS TOANIMAL CARE ACT
Four years ago, Congress heeded the advice of humanitariansand enacted the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act, regulatingthe sale and handling of animals used for scientific research.
While the 1966 act was a heartening step toward the humanetreatment of laboratory animals, suggestions have been madeon ways of improving the law.
Congress is now considering two bills that incorporate a num-ber of these suggestions—one measure from Rep. G. WilliamsWhitehurst and the other from Rep. Thomas S. Foley. Bothbills would extend the 1966 law to include warm-blooded ani-mals in zoos, circuses and the pet industry, but the Foleymeasure would go further than the Whitehurst bill by requir-ing the use of analgesic or tranquilizing drugs to minimizesuffering of animals being used in experiments.
A combination of the two bills, with the specific veterinarycare specified by the Foley measure, strikes us as valuable ad-ditions to the 1966 law that would in no way impair the ef-fectiveness of essential scientific research.
We hope Congress acts promptly and affirmatively on theseamendments.
3 7 c
DEMOCRAT and CHRONICLE, Rochester, N.Y.September 14, 1970
"In the 1930-31 season, 43,000 whales of the bigspecies yielded 3.5 million barrels of whale oil. In the1966-67 season, improved hunting techniques togetherwith increased numbers of whaling ships yielded 52,000smaller whales for 1.5 million barrels. And the situa-ation continues to worsen.
"The whalers have finally agreed to stop, or reducethe hunting of those species which either have becomeextinct or are about to become so. But violations ofthese agreements occur. A plan to place internationalobservers aboard factory ships to verify compliancewith the agreements has been resisted by both theJapanese and the Russians.
"The recent history of whaling is almost withoutparallel. Despite precision in the statistics ... and thepresent obvious danger of extinction for both the greatwhales and the whaling industry, the pursuit continues,abated only by the scarcity of the prey. Normally re-sponsible countries are acting not only irresponsibly,but irrationally as well... The statistics are such thatcetologists are able to predict with startling accuracyhow far short of their goals the whalers will fall eachyear. And almost equally predictably the whalers willrequire four to five years to respond to the plight ofclearly endangered species and reduce their declininglyproductive efforts.
"The world whale situation is extraordinarily clear.Many whale species, including the blue, may be ef-fectively extinct already. The herd requires a minimumsize, not just to reproduce but to maintain a pool ofgenetic variability to remain biologically viable. Thebowhead and right whales already may be gone. Thefinbacks, sperms and seis are declining rapidly.
"Recently an entirely new reason for saving whaleshas come to light. Recent recordings of the sounds pfhumpback whales reveal another striking phenomenonof the whale world. Dr. Roger Payne, an EDF trusteewho has been studying whale behavior and recordinghumpback sounds under the auspices of the New YorkZoological Society and Rockefeller University, andScott McVay of Princeton University, have been an-alyzing the function and structure of humpback sounds.
"They have discovered that the sounds follow definite'song' patterns sometimes as long as thirty minutesduration, after which they are repeated. The songs areeerie and hauntingly beautiful. They contain a be-wildering tonal range and variety of sounds. It is ironicthat man knows so little about the behavior of livewhales, who are among the oldest mammals, and somuch about their death flurries. (A record of thehumpback songs may be purchased by writing to'Whales', P.O. Box 131, Del Mar, California 92014.)"
CALIFORNIA REQUIRES QUARANTINEOF EXOTIC WILDLIFE
Regulations requiring a 30-day quarantine periodfor 145 kinds of primates, including squirrel monkeys,and a number of South American wild cats, enteringthe State of California, were approved September 18,1970. The regulations were promulgated under a lawpassed by the California legislature August, 1969, whichadds Chapter 14, Importation of Wild Animals, toDivision 20 of the Health and Safety Code.
According to a statement issued by the CaliforniaState Department of Public Health, wholesale and re-tail pet supply dealers present at the meeting were un-successful in attempts to exclude squirrel monkeys andocelots from the import regulations. Responding totheir plea that quarantine and testing costs would makethe price of these animals prohibitive, State PublicHealth Director, Dr. Louis F. Saylor, said : 'That'spart of the cost of doing business.' Dr. Saylor empha-sized danger to the public health from the direct im-portation of primates that may have tuberculosis orother diseases. In the case of unquarantined wild cats,some may be infected with rabies which could spreadto humans and other animals.
The new regulations are expected to reduce thenumbers of squirrel monkeys, ocelots and other wildanimals being imported into the State of California.The law, passed as a public health measure, is impor-tant from the standpoint of animal protection, too,since it may mark the beginning of a reduction in theexcessive importation of wild creatures that suffergreatly from confinement and the rigors of transporta-tion. These animals should be left in their naturalhabitat.
EASING ANIMAL PAINSA subcommittee of Congress soon will consider action on
legislation that would amend the 1966 Laboratory AnimalWelfare Act to include use of tranquilizers to alleviate pain,when such use of drugs would not obstruct valid scientific ex-perimentation. It would also lend protection of federal lawto animals in zoos, circuses and pet dealers' cages. Animalsneedlessly tortured must depend on humanitarians to plead theircase. Who can want wanton infliction of pain on any livingcreature ? Without impairing research in any serious way, thisbill would ban the infliction of pain carelessly, callously, orpointlessly. It should have Congressional approval.
PROTECTION OF WHALES
The List of Endangered Species, pursuant to the1969 endangered Species Act was published by theDepartment of the Interior, June 2, 1970. The listincludes most baleen whales and the sperm whale. Ifthis action can be sustained against the attacks of com-mercial interests, it will stop importation of whale oiland other whale products into the United States. TheU.S. imports about one-fifth of the world's sperm oilproduction and probably a similar fraction of the oncelarge baleen oil production. (Americans have not en-gaged in major whaling activity since the 1900s.) Thewhale products market has been in serious decline inthe last few years due to collapse of the stock. Thebaleen stocks are down to less than 10% of their num-bers prior to modern whaling.
Russia and Japan kill 85% of the whales now beingcaptured each year. Two American companies importand process about 20% of the oil. According to thewhale expert, Dr. Roger S. Payne of the New YorkZoological Society, the two companies are the ArcherDaniels, Midland Company of Decatur, 1Illinois, andWerner G. Smith, Inc. of Cleveland.
The Environmental Defense Fund with the aid ofthe New York Zoological Society's Whale Fund andthe National Audubon Society have sought to persuadeRussia and Japan through diplomatic, scientific andlegal channels to cut down on the killing of whales.The Environmental Defense Fund documented thewhales' plight for the Department of Interior's En-dangered Species List. In a news release the EDFstated : "It is commonly thought that whales werehunted most heavily in the days of sailing ships whenwhale oil was uniquely appropriate for lamps. The truthis that modern factory ships and whaling methods havemade the 1960s the most devastating decade in whalinghistory, ironically a period when whale oil is neitherunique nor important. Many substitutes are availablefor each use of whale oil. Nor is it an important oilsource quantitatively. For example, in 1967 the U.S.production of soybean oil was 11 times the world pro-duction of whale oil—not to mention our productionof cottonseed, corn, and peanut oil. Yet for this un-necessary source of oil, the whalers are destroying oneof Earth's most precious biological treasures, the gentleleviathans of the animal world.
"As the whaling catches have declined, country aftercountry has withdrawn from the slaughter. Englandquit in 1963, for example, and the Dutch and Nor-wegians followed suit. Yet whaling pressure on thedeclining stocks has not lessened for two reasons. Firstit was common for a withdrawing country to sell itsfactory ships and whale quota to either the Japaneseor the Russians.,
"Second, as each species reached a point where itshunting was no longer economical, the hunting con-tinued after smaller less remunerative species. In re-cent years, the blue whale, the largest animal on earth,and the playful, slow-swimming humpback have be-come 'commercially extinct' (The bowhead and rightwhales were eliminated in the early part of this centuryand have not recovered.) As they became unavailable,pressure grew on the finback, sperm and even the smallsei whale. The insidious aspect of this situation is thatwhile it made no commercial sense to hunt blues orhumpbacks, it was and is economical to kill one en-countered while hunting for the remaining species.Thus, as hunting pressure was turned to progressivelysmaller species, the fleets were kept in operation andenabled to kill off surviving specimens of endangeredspecies. Small whales in a sense subsidized the extermi-nation of larger ones.
3-7/
SECRETARY HICKEL STOPS FLOW OFSTRYCHNINE TO SOUTH AMERICA
Secretary of the Interior, Walter S. Hickel, put anend to sale of one of the cruellest poisons known, to thePan American Health Organization which had beenpurchasing massive quantities of strychnine tablets toconceal in bites of liver which hungry South Americandogs gulped avidly only to die in long-drawn-out con-vulsions. The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife,a division of the U.S. Department of the Interior, sup-plied the agonizing poison. Secretary Hickel deserveswarm commendation for his humane directive, elimin-ating an example of extreme pain-infliction and injus-tice at a single stroke of the pen.
John Walsh, Field Officer of the International So-ciety for the Protection of Animals, reported to Sec-retary Hickel on the terrible suffering caused by thepoison supplied by our government. He personally wit-nessed and photographed the results of this primitiveform of rabies control which has failed completely tosolve the problem. This failure is acknowledged nowby those who were responsible for shipping the stry-chnine.
Responding to a letter from the Society for AnimalProtective Legislation, the Assistant Director of theBureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife wrote in part :"The rabies threat is as great today as it was when westarted to supply the material [strychnine). But we rec-ognize that a more selective method of dealing withthe problem must be found. After considering all facetsof the problem, including international commitments,Secretary Hickel wrote to the Pan American HealthOrganization on May 22 advising that we would nolonger supply strychnine after August 22. Accordingly,we have now discontinued this practice. That 90-clayperiod allowed time for other arrangements to be made.PAHO was encouraged to contact the InternationalSociety for the Protection of Animals for technicalguidance in developing a humane and economical meansof dealing with the rabies problem."
Letters of appreciation from humanitarians to Hon.Walter S. Hickel, Secretary of the Interior, Washing-ton, D.C. would be in order.
SECOND EDITION OFANIMALS AND THEIR LEGAL RIGHTSThe first edition of Animals and Their Legal Rights
(1968) has been revised to include laws passed sincethat time, and it is now available at cost price, $1.00per copy, from Animal Welfare Institute. Libraries andhumane societies may obtain one free copy on request.The 217-page paperback book includes chapters on :"The Evolution of Anti-Cruelty Laws in the UnitedStates," "First Federal Law to Prevent Cruelty to Ani-mals," "Humane Slaughter Laws," "Laboratory Ani-mal Welfare," "Cruelty on the High Seas, Importationof Wild Animals and Birds," "Dogs," "Cats," "Horses,""Laws Regulating the Sale of Small Animals andBirds," "Fighting and Baiting," "Trapping," "HumaneEducation in the Public Schools," "Organizations forthe Protection of Animals, and Law EnforcementAgencies," "Marine Mammals." The appendix includes :State Laws Regulating Transportation of Livestock ;Federal Humane Slaughter Act ; Foreign Anti-CrueltyLaws and Humane Slaughter Laws ; Foreign Labora-tory Animal Welfare Laws ; British Cruelty to Ani-mals Act, 1876,; French Decree Regulating Experi-ments on Animals, 1968; Pennsylvania Rules and Reg-ulations Governing Roadside Menageries, July 1, 1969;Hit and Run Drivers; Keeping Live Birds to be ShotAt; Easter Chick Laws, Ordinances ; MassachusettsSPCA Rules Governing Horse and Ox Pulling Con-test,; Animal Health Division, U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Field Stations and Veterinarians inCharge ; State Law Libraries ; Annotated Statutes ofthe States ; Schweitzer Medallists ; Bibliography ; SomePublications of the Animal Welfare Institute.
CANADIAN YOUTH SCIENCEFOUNDATION ISSUES GUIDING
PRINCIPLESGuiding Principles for Animal Experimentation at
the Pre-University Level have been prepared by theNational Youth Science Foundation in Canada. Adapt-ed from the Guiding Principles prepared by the Can-adian Council on Animal Care, the new guidelines in-clude the important proviso : "No vertebrate animalexperiment should be undertaken which interferes withthe normal health of the animal or causes the animalpain or distress." Following is the complete text
National Youth Science FoundationGuiding Principles for Animal Experimentation at
the Pre-University LevelBiological experimentation involving animals is es-
sential for an understanding of living processes. Suchstudies should lead to a respect for all living things.Capable students, anxious to pursue a career in thebiological sciences must receive the necessary encour-agement and direction. All aspects of the project mustbe within the comprehensions and capabilities of thestudent undertaking the study.
Lower orders of life should be used whenever pos-sible. Such lower orders as bacteria, fungi, protozoaand insects can reveal much basic biological informa-tion, therefore, it is preferable to use these forms forexperimentation at the pre-university level.
No vertebrate animal experiment should be under-taken which interferes with the normal health of theanimal or causes the animal pain or distress.
All experiments should be carried out under thesupervision of a qualified adult (biology teacher). Itshall be the responsibility of the qualified adult to en-sure the student has the necessary comprehension forthe study to be undertaken. If necessary, specificallyqualified experts in the field should be consulted.
All experimental animals used in teaching programsmust be properly cared for. Animal quarters should bemade comfortable by provisions for sanitation, protec-tion from the elements and space for exercise. Theliving quarters should have easily cleaned surfaces,good ventilation and lighting, well regulated tempera-tures and cages of sufficient size to prevent overcrowd-ing. Experimental studies with animals should not takeplace in the home, but must be carried out in a suitablearea in the school.
Food should be palatable, of sufficient quantity andbalance to maintain normal nutrition. Clean drinkingwater should be available at all times. Containers forfood and water should be of a type designed specificallyfor that purpose.
Colonies and quarters should be supervised by acompetent biologist experienced in animal care. Thestudents and other animal care staff should be trainedand required to treat animals kindly and provide themwith the necessary comforts.
Information on the care, housing and procedures forindividual species may be obtained from the Care ofExperimental Animals, a Guide for Canada, availablefrom the Canadian Council on Animal Care, 151 SlaterStreet, Ottawa 4, Ontario.
The use of animals must comply with existing local,provincial or federal regulations.
For information and names of qualified expertsYouth Science Fair Animal Care Committee,Youth Science Foundation,151 Slater St., Ottawa 4, Ontario.
NEW ARTICLE ON HIGH SCHOOLBIOLOGY TEACHINGBY BARBARA ORLANS
"Painless Animal Experimentation," by Dr. F.Barbara Orlans appeared in the April 6, 1970 issue ofScholastic Teacher. Those who wish to obtain a copymay do so by writing to the Animal Welfare Institute.
ANIMAL WELFARE INSTITUTEScientific Committee on Humane Standards for Research Animals
Marjorie Anchel, Ph.D. Paul Kiernan, M.D. Samuel Peacock, M.D.Lee R. Dice. Ph.D.Richard G. Pearce, D.V.M.F. Barbara Orlans, Ph.D.Bennett Derby, M.D. John Walsh, M.D.
International CommitteeT. G. Antikatzides, D.V.M.—Greece David Ricardo—CanadaMajor C. W. Hume, 0.B.E.. M.C., B.Sc., M.I. Biol.—United Kingdom P. Rousselet-Blanc. D.N'.—FranceSydney Jennings, M.R.C.V.S.. D.V.A.—Mexico N. E. Wernberg—Denmark
OfficersChristine Stevens. President Alfred R. Glancy, Jr.. Vice-President Dorothy Dyce, Laboratory Animal ConsultantMadeleine Bemelmans, Secretary Roger L Stevens, Treasurer Barbara Gould, Publications Secretary
370-
INFORMATI4NANIMAL WELFARE INSTITUTE
P.O. Box 3492, Grand Central Station, New York, N.Y. 10017
October, November, December, 1970 Vol. 19, No. 4
ANIMAL WELFARE ACT OF 1970PASSED BY HOUSE AND SENATE
The most comprehensive federal law for the pro-tection of animals ever passed by the Congress, theAnimal Welfare Act of 1970, H.R. 19846, was unani-mously approved by the U.S. House of RepresentativesDecember seventh and by the U.S. Senate Decembereighth. The bill was the result of extensive study bythe Subcommittee on Livestock and Grains of theHouse Agriculture Committee after hearings held thisJune on H.R. 13957 introduced by Congressman G.William Whitehurst (R., Va.).
In the words of the Hon. W. R. Poage, Chairmanof the House Committee on Agriculture, published inthe Committee Report : "H.R. 19846 is a bill which isthe result of careful consideration by the Livestockand Grains Subcommittee and the full Committee onAgriculture. It is an effort to demonstrate America'shumanity to lesser creatures while maintaining andpromoting the national enlightenment in medicine forthe care of all mankind. It is a bill which initially wascontroversial, but which, by virtue of good reason andgood will and deliberation and discussion by manypersons of divergent views, was able to command theunanimous approval of the Committee on Agricultureas well as the joint sponsorship of the entire member-ship of the Livestock and Grains Subcommittee."
On the floor of the House of Representatives, theHon. Thomas Foley, who had introduced a precursorbill, H.R. 18637, and spent a great deal of time andthought in Subcommittee meetings on the subject, actedas floor manager for H.R. 19846. In presenting it, hesaid in part : "Mr. Speaker, the Agriculture Commit-tee brings to the floor this afternoon what we con-sider to be a major step forward in the protection ofanimal welfare in the United States. This follows thelandmark legislation passed in 1966 by the 89th Con-gress, but it expands considerably on that legislationin four areas.
"First, the bill expands the definition of the term'animal' to include additional species. At present theact applies only to live dogs, cats, rabbits, hamsters,guinea pigs, and nonhuman primate mammals.
"This bill, within its definition includes all warm-blooded animals designated by the Secretary, with cer-tain specific limitations and defined exceptions.
"Second, the bill regulates more individuals and or-ganizations which handle live animals, and will bringinto the framework of the legislation for the first timeexhibitors such as circuses, zoos, carnivals, road shows,and wholesale pet dealers.
"Third, the bill establishes by law the humane ethicthat animals should be accorded the basic creature com-forts of adequate housing, ample food and water, rea-sonable handling, decent sanitation, sufficient ventila-tion, shelter from extremes of weather and tempera-ture, and adequate veterinary care including the ap-propriate use of pain -killing drugs, including analgesicsand tranquilizing drugs. The bill specifically guaran-tees the absolute authority of the research institutionsto c9nduct research experiments so that the enlightenedleadership of the United States in the medical andscientific research field will not in any way be di-minished.
"Fourth, the bill strengthens the Secretary of Agri-culture's enforcement authority by broadening the sta-tutory concept of 'commerce,' and by increasing thepenalties against persons convicted of interfering with,assaulting, or killing Government inspectors, and bybroadening the discovery procedures for obtaining ade-quate information to sustain proper administration.
"Mr. Speaker, this bill is the result of months ofdifficult legislative effort. It involved in its early stagesgreat controversy. It was a bill that many thought
(Continued on page 3)
WALKING HORSE BILL BECOMES LAWOn October 12th, the House Committee on Inter-
state and Foreign Commerce under the Chairmanshipof the Hon. Harley 0. Staggers issued a favorable re-port on a slightly modified S. 2543. The CommitteeReport stated in part : "The reported bill is designedto end the inhumane practice of deliberately makingsore the feet of Tennessee walking horses in order toalter their natural gait. It would do so by prohibitingthe shipment of any horse in Commerce, for showingor exhibition, which a person has reason to believeis sored ; by making unlawful the exhibiting of a soredhorse in any horse show or exhibition in which thathorse or any other horse was moved in commerce ;and by prohibiting the holding of any horse show inwhich a sored horse is exhibited if any of the horsesin that show were moved in commerce.
"The bill authorizes appropriations of not to ex-ceed $100,000 annually to carry out its provisions."
S. 2543 was unanimously passed by the U.S. Houseof Representatives. The Senate agreed to the Houseamendments, and President Nixon signed it on De-cember ninth.
HOUSE PASSES BILL AGAINSTHUNTING FROM AIRCRAFT
On a motion by the Hon. John Dingell (D., Mich.)the U.S. House of Representatives on December 7,1970, suspended the rules and passed H.R. 15188 toprohibit shooting at animals from airplanes. The bill,as reported out of the House Committee on MerchantMarine and Fisheries, is more comprehensive than themeasure on which hearings were held earlier this year.It would amend both the Fish and Wildlife Act of1956 and the Federal Aviation Act of 1958. The es-sential sections read as follows
"That the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 is amendedby adding at the end thereof the following new section :
"Sec. 12. (a) Any person who —"(1) while airborne in an aircraft shoots or attempts
to shoot for the purpose of capturing or killing anybird, fish, or other animal ; or
"(2) uses an aircraft to harass any bird, fish, orother animal ; or
"(3) knowingly participates in using an aircraft forany purpose referred to in paragraph (1) or (2) ; shallbe fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not morethan one year, or both."
The proposed amendment to the Federal AviationAct included in H.R. 15188 reads :
"The Administrator, in his discretion may issue anorder amending, modifying, suspending, or revokingany airman certificate upon conviction of the holderof such certificate of any violation of subsection (a)of section 12 of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956,regarding the use or operation of an aircraft."
In his remarks on the floor of the House, Congress-man Dingell emphasized the protection of wolves. Hesaid, "Mr. Speaker, in November of 1969, the NBCtelevision network showed a documentary film en-titled 'The Wolf Men." Several scenes from the film -depicted the hunting of wolves from aircraft and pre-sented an interesting account of the status of the NorthAmerican wolf. The film generated more mail fromconcerned citizens in support of legislation to prohibithunting from aircraft than any other conservation legis-lation considered by my Subcommittee on Fisheriesand Wildlife Conservation during the past decadeor more.
"Many states have already tackled this problem andhave enacted laws to regulate the use of hunting fromaircraft. In fact all States now prohibit the shooting ofgame animals from airplanes, and 34 of these States
273
have extended this prohibition to include nongameanimals as well. Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, it ismost unsportsmanlike to hunt from aircraft, and I amsure my colleagues will join me in putting an end tothis abominable practice.
"The bill we are considering today, H.R. 15188,would supplement State law in this regard and notonly would it put an end to the hunting of wolvesfrom aircraft, but it would also make it unlawful forthose so-called sportsmen to hunt any species of bird,fish or other animal from aircraft.
The Hon. John Saylor (R., Pa.), author of H.R.15188, urged immediate action on his bill. Quotingstatistics on the shooting of wolves from the air, hesaid, "It does not take any great amount of statisticaltalent to project that in the 13 months since November,1969, at least another 1,000 wolves have been killedoff by the kind of monsters which we saw in the na-tionally televised program.... In my mind, and in theminds of many individuals and groups throughout thecountry, H.R. 15188 is a simple legislative solution toa blatant crime against nature."
Congressman Edward Garmatz, (D., Md.) Chair-man of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fish-eries, said, "... H.R. 15188 would not only make itunlawful to hunt wolves — which incidentally are listedas an endangered species with less than 5,400 in num-ber in the United States — but it would also make itunlawful to hunt birds, fish or any other kind of ani-mal from an aircraft. The bill makes adequate allow-ance for Federal or State employees, permitees, andagents authorized to use an aircraft in carrying outtheir regular duties in protecting land, water, and wild-life.
"H.R. 15188 was overwhelmingly supported by themembers of my committee, and I urge its immediate
, passage."Strong supporting statements were Made by Con-
gressman Thomas M. Pelly (R., Wash.) and Congress-man David Obey (D., Wis.), and the bill was passedunanimously.
TRAPPING REGULATION LEGISLATIONIN NEW JERSEY
Substantial support has developed for a series offour bills which would exercise a modicum of controlover the leg-hold trap in the State of New Jerseywhere a great deal of muskrat trapping still goes on.The so-called "wring-offs" in which the desperate ani-mal gnaws off his own leg in order to escape fromthe torture of the trap, cause a loss of an estimatedone third of all muskrats trapped ; nevertheless, thereis strong resistance on the part of some trappers touse the less cruel "killer" traps in which the animalis killed instantly, or in a short time.
The New Jersey Veterinary Medical Associationhas gone on record in support of the bills : S-706, 7,8, and 9. They contain a series of separate provisionsincluding the requirement that each trapper must pur-chase a separate license to trap, that he must registerand permanently identify all traps, that no personunder the age of 12 be issued a license to trap, thatsteel-jaw leg-hold traps be prohibited in highly popu-lated (first or second class) countries, that no per-son under the age of 18 may use a steel-jaw leg-holdtrap, that killer traps be completely submerged underwater, and, finally, that the trapper be liable for in-jury or damage to persons, livestock or householdpets caught in his traps on another person's land, andthat skunks, mink, muskrats or otters may be releasedfrom illegally set traps.
The mutilation and suffering sometimes leading todeath of household pets caught in traps has becomecommon in New Jersey and has shocked the public.Some instances cited by Mrs. Thomas Maxwell, leaderof the trap-regulation campaign include : Paramus"Pet cat missing two weeks, found with head in trap.Large holes on both sides of mouth, almost a skeletonRiver Vale : Fox terrier killed when a steel trap snappedshut on its face ; Pemberton : German Shepherd draggedtrap two weeks before rescue. Paw smashed and gan-grenous; Green Brook : Cat in trap five days. Bothfront legs mangled and ulcerated from paws to el-bows. Euthanized by veterinarian. Teaneck : Threetraps found in people's yards. Two gripped torn-offcat's paw, one gripped a chewed-off raccoon paw."
NEW USE FOR DOG IN MEDICINEThe following article is reprinted in its entirety from
the July 16th issue of The Ann Arbor (Michigan)News.
Hospital Canine Aids Troubled ChildrenSkeezer, a four-footed psychiatrist's helper, is mak-
ing her third anniversary as full-time "resident canine"at The University of Michigan's Children's PsychiatricHospital. She is probably one of the few dogs any-where to be chosen on the basis of an engineeringsurvey.
Unlike the skilled nurses and physicians with whomshe associates, Skeezer has no credentials at all.
Even her pedigree is suspect. She's part Labrador,part German shepherd, and part mystery. But there'sno longer any question about her achievements.
Three years ago she was selected to fill a newlycreated job in the psychiatric hospital : companion tothe 50 children undergoing extended in-patient treat-ment here.
The job had been defined in a four-page engineeringfeasibility study which went into such factors as safety,living arrangements, health, patient reactions, sanita-tion, and the temperament needed by the proposedresident canine.
There was one minor discrepancy. The study calledfor a calm, placid male. Skeezer is female. Soon aftercoming on the job she presented the hospital with ninepuppies.
Skeezer didn't even take maternity leave. And theevent proved an unexpected boon.
"The pregnancy and delivery touched off consider-able discussion among our young patients about thewhole topic of procreation," recalled Dr. Stuart M.Finch, chief of the children's psychiatic service. "Manyof the children had extremely distorted concepts aboutthis, and our staff had an opportunity to discuss morenormal attitudes about it with the youngsters."
During her three-year residency, Skeezer has taughtthe children many things they might not have learnedotherwise.
"One time Skeezer cut her paw," said nurse AliceWilliams. "I took time out to clean it and make sureshe was going to be all right. I discovered the childrenwere keenly interested in this. I am sure now thatthey were measuring and testing me, to see how muchcare they themselves could expect to get from me ifthey needed it."
More recently, an 11-year-old patient took Skeezerthrough the entire obedience course offered by the local4-H Club. Boy and dog made the second highest scorein the graduating class and brought back a blue ribbon.
"It was worth a million dollars to the child," saidMiss Williams. Skeezer outdid herself ; she seemed tosense that the boy needed such a victory to help himon the road to recovery.
Unlike her professional associates, Skeezer nevergoes off duty. Her home is beside Miss Williams' deskat the nursing station. But she has learned to take freerun of the hospital, through a combination of greatpatience and uncanny knowledge of where she is andwhere she wants to go.
To commute through the six-story building with itsmany closed or locked doors, Skeezer prefers the ele-vator. When ready to travel, she takes up a positionat the elevator door and simply waits for a human toenter or leave the cage. Then she darts in and ridespatiently up and down until the door opens on thefloor she wants to visit.
Skeezer also serves as part-time receptionist andgeneral goodwill ambassador for the hospital. Said MissWilliams : "She spends part of her time in the mainlobby greeting incoming patients and their families.Her presence gives the hospital a homey, relaxed at-mosphere which would be difficult to achieve withouther."
Part of her job is to serve as an outlet for affectionby the children. She joins them. forweekend camping
—37cl
trips, picnics and other outings, and pads around thepatient floors checking on her 50 charges.
While she plays no favorites, Skeezer will occasion-ally sense that one patient or another needs the specialcomfort and security only a concerned dog can furnishto a troubled child. Then she will ungrudgingly leavethe nursing desk and spend the night at the child's bed.
Three years ago, the engineering study ended on thiscautious note : "It may be difficult to assess the fullsignificance of (this proposal) without undergoing atrial or probationary period."
"I was somewhat skeptical at first," Dr. Finch ad-mitted this week. "But I have since become a supporterof Skeezer's residency here. Many of our youngstersenter the hospital suffering from disturbed relation-ships with both people and animals. In some instances,the first sign of progress has been noted in their re-lationship with Skeezer."
Despite her doubtful pedigree, Skeezer receives moreprofessional attention than any of her thoroughbred—and hence distant—relatives.
"BASIC CARE OF EXPERIMENTALANIMALS" GOES INTO FIFTH EDITIONThe Animal Welfare Institute was the first organi-
zation in the United States to prepare a manual foruse by laboratory animal caretakers and technicians.Since 1954, "Basic Care of Experimental Animals"has been distributed free on request to scientific in-stitutions in quantities sufficient to provide each in-dividual technician with his own copy. It has gonethrough four editions, and the fifth is now availableon request from veterinarians, scientists, administrators,technicians and caretakers.
The Animal Welfare Institute wishes to expressparticular appreciation for assistance in preparing thefifth edition to Dr. Samuel Hodesson, Director, Divi-sion of Animal Resources, College of Medicine, Uni-versity of Arizona and to Dr. Jules Cass, Chief ofResearch in Laboratory Animal Medicine, Science andTechnology, Research Service, Department of Medicineand Surgery, Veterans Administration, 'Washington,D.C. Thanks are due, too, to the Laboratory AnimalsStaff of the Animal Health Division, United StatesDepartment of Agriculture, for reading the manuscriptto eliminate any conflict with the U.S.D.A. standardsunder The Laboratory Animal Welfare Act.
The material on anesthetics, analgesics and tran-quilizers has been given additional attention as havesome suggestions on humane handling techniques fordifferent species. A new foreword indicates the aimsand uses of the manual which have, on occasion, beenmisunderstood. It states
"Since the first edition of Basic Care of Experi-mental Animals was published fifteen years ago, a greatincrease has occurred in numbers of veterinary con-sultants in research institutions and of staff membersholding the veterinary degree. Treatment of diseasedanimals and of those that have undergone surgery orother stress in research institutions is best done bygraduate veterinarians. The requirement for adequateveterinary care under Federal Laboratory Animal Wel-fare Act has, in ,many instances, brought about es-sential improvements in the treatment of research ani-mals in institutions registered under the Act. In manysmaller laboratories not required to meet Federalstandards of humane handling and adequate veterinarycare, however, no veterinarian is available to treat theanimals or to provide common sense information tothose caring for them. In such cases, this manual maybe the only source of facts and guidance.
"The use of Basic Care of Experimental Animalsby caretakers under the direct supervision of a veter-inary director is best illustrated by comments receivedfrom Samuel Hodesson, D.V.M., M.P.H., Director,Division of Animal Resources, College of Medicine,University of Arizona : 'I think the manual is appropri-ately named and beautifully written. Too frequentlywe become so concerned with the scientific aspects oflaboratory animals that we overlook the necessity forspelling out the many details of basic care as the Ani-mal 'Welfare Institute has done. I would like to seea well-thumbed copy of this manual in the hands of
every animal caretaker. We distribute them to stu-dents in the basic training course for laboratory ani-mal technicians and inform them that it is requiredreading for anyone involved in animal caretaking.'
The new edition is 78 pages long. Like all previouseditions it is illustrated. A new cover photograph showsa dog being exercised on a leash by a senior animal sci-ence technology student at Delhi Tech, a unit of theState University of New York. In the background,other laboratory dogs are shown in their outdoor run-ways which connect with inside kennels to which thedogs may come and go at will.
Animal Welfare Act of 1970(Cont. from page 1)
could never reach the floor. However, because of theexceptional cooperation of persons of good will anddevotion not only to the cause of animal welfare, butto the advancement of scientific research and know-ledge, this bill has the substantial support of the medi-cal research community, the pharmaceutical industry,other industrial organizations, and the many organiza-tions and individuals directly concerned with animalwelfare."
The Hon. Catherine May (R., Wash.), ranking Re-publican member of the Subcommittee on Livestockand Grains, was chief spokesman for the bill from herparty. Following her strong endorsement of the legisla-tion, she placed in the Record the article, "More LegalProtection on the Way for Animals Behind Bars," byAnn Cottrell Free (Washington Sunday Star, Decem-ber 6, 1970).
Seven more members of Congress spoke in supportof H.R. 19846. At the end of the debate, CongressmanFoley's motion to suspend the rules and pass the billwas approved without a single dissenting voice.
The following day, Senator Mike Mansfield (D.,Mont.), Majority Leader of the Senate, asked unani-mous consent that the Senate proceed to the considera-tion of H.R. 19846 which had come over from the.House. Senator Norris Cotton (R., N.H.) spoke ofthe merits of the bill. He said in part, "As the seniorRepublican member of the Senate Committee on Com-merce since 1963, I have watched with great satisfac-tion the development of our congressional commitmentto the protection and humane treatment of animals."He noted alternative measures which had been con-sidered and said, "I believe the proposal to retain theresponsibility for regulation in the Department of Agri-culture with a greater grant of authority from Congressis most commendable and deserving of enactment....I would hope that with the endorsement of the Com-mittee on Commerce, and after the most commendablework which has been done by the House Committeeon Agriculture, the Senate will see fit to pass it with-out delay."
Senator Robert Dole (R., Kans.) said, "Mr. Presi-dent, H.R. 19846, which has been approved by theHouse of Representatives, is identical to a bill whichI introduced on November 24 in an effort to expediteenactment of this important legislation.
"I am impressed by the skill evidenced by the de-signers of this piece of legislation in resolving differ-ences we have seen in the past between humane ani-mal care groups and the medical research community.I know this has taken many months of hearings andconsideration by the House Agriculture Committee toreach this point of agreement, and I congratulate allthose responsible for their efforts in this regard,Having reached this point I do not believe that weshould delay any further in approving the MI whichwe now have before us."
A few minutes later the bill was ordered to a thirdreading and passed unanimously.
Thus a giant step for the protection of warmbloodedanimals was taken in the closing days of the 91stCongress. Its signifcance is well expressed in the in-troductory sentences of Chairman Poage's report fromthe Committee on Agriculture : "This bill representsa continuing commitment by Congress to the ethic ofkindness to dumb aimals.
"Beginning with the legislation passed in 1966 (Pub-lic Law 98-544), the United States Government hasimplemented a statutory mandate that small helplesscreatures deserve the care and protection of a strongand enlightened public."
WHALES REMAIN ON ENDANGEREDSPECIES LIST
The world's largest mammals, whose fate has beenbeing argued by exploiters and conservationists inhearings before the U.S. Department of the Interior,were given the desperately needed protection of theEndangered Species Act by the Honorable Walter J.Hickel shortly before he was removed from his postas Secretary of the Interior.
Because there has been much concern and somemisconceptions about the final status of the whales,the following quotations from an article in The NewYork Times, November 29th are given : "One of Mr.Hickel's last official acts was an order placing eightspecies of whales on the endangered list and, thus,banning the importation of products derived fromthem. And one of the earliest actions of the depart-ment after his ouster by President Nixon was a moveto hold up publication of the order in The FederalRegister. Publication is required before the order canbecome official.
"Tonight, however, it was disclosed that the orderwould be published in The Federal Register on Mon-day as scheduled, and Deputy Under Secretary, Wil-liam Rogers, whose phone call to the GovernmentPrinting Off ice had held up the order, was quoted byan aide as terming his action a 'ghastly mistake.'...The action delaying the order stemmed, it is said, froma telephone call from U. Alexis Johnson, Under Sec-retary of State for Political Affairs, to Mr. Rogers,asking that publication of the Hickel order be stopped.
"The State Department has for some time beenattempting to negotiate a reduction of whaling throughthe International Whaling Commission, and it ob-jected to the unilateral move by the United States.Mr. Johnson is understood to have made these pointsto Mr. Rogers, who then placed the call to stoppublication.
"Makers of pet food and cosmetics and other usersof whale products in the United States had also ob-jected to the ban during extended hearings held atthe Interior Department before Mr. Hickel issued hisorder."
The last AWI Information Report (Vol. 19, No. 3)contains an article, "Protection of Whales," which de-tails the decimation of these magnificent, intelligent andsympathetic animals. We would note again, that every-one who is interested in the mental and emotionalcapabilities of different species will be fascinated by"The Song of the Humpback Whale" recorded byDr. Roger S. Payne and available from 'Whales,' P.O.Box 131, Del Mar, California 92014, for about tendollars.
FEDERAL JUDGE UPHOLDS MASONENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
District Judge Walter R. Mansfield ruled, November30th, that a state has a right to protect endangeredwildlife in foreign countries. The attempt by Palladio,Inc., a Massachusetts shoe manufacturer, to enjoinNew York State restrictions on importation and saleof skins of endangered species met with failure.
In denying the injunction, Judge Mansfield wrote"Plaintiff has no property right in the wildlife offoreign countries, and the mere loss of profits is nota basis for declaring the state laws unconstitutional,
"The state's list may be broader than the Federallist. We cannot overrule the legislature for being cau-tious. Extinct animals, like lost time, can never bebrought back. They are gone forever. Since 1600 A.D.,the world has destroyed for all time 130 animal speciesand 228 sub-species."
This was the second unsuccessful attempt by com-mercial interests to upset the two endangered specieslaws passed by the New York State Legislature thisyear. (See Information Report, Vol. 19, No. 2)
AWI DISPLAYS EDUCATION MATERIALSAT NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
BIOLOGY TEACHERS CONVENTIONA booth exhibit featuring ethology and ecology was
presented by the Animal Welfare Institute at the an-nual convention of the National Association of BiologyTeachers (October 20-24, Denver, Colorado). Greatinterest was evinced by teachers and supervisors at-tending the convention, and the AWI educational man-uals were offered without charge to be taken by alleducators who visited the booth.
AWI ANNUAL REPORT AVAILABLEThe Nineteenth Annual Report of the Animal Wel-
fare Institute is being distributed to members with thisInformation Report. Others who are interested inreading it and possibly becoming members, too, areinvited to write for a copy to the address on themasthead.
NEW ARTICLE ON TEACHINGNUTRITION
Dr. F. Barbara Orlans, of the Animal Welfare Insti-tute's Scientific Committee, has written an article en-titled, "Better Nutrition Studies," which was publishedin the November, 1970 issue of The American BiologyTeacher. The cruel cliche of starving small animals inclass is shown for what it is and contrasted with inter-esting and original suggestions for humane teachingmethods. Reprints are available for all who desire toread the article. Requests should be sent to the addresson the masthead of the Information Report.
ANIMAL WELFARE INSTITUTEScientific Conimittee on Humane Standards for Research Animals
Marjorie Anchel, Ph.D. Paul Kiernan, M.D. Samuel Peacock, M.D.Lee R. Dice, Ph.D. Richard G. Pearce, D.V.M.F. Barbara Orlans, Ph.D.Bennett Derby, M.D. John Walsh, M.D.
International CommitteeT. G. Antikatzides, D.V.M.—GreeceMajor C. W. Hume, 0.B.E., M.C., B.Sc., M.I. Biol.—United KingdomSydney Jennings, M.R.C.V.S., D.V.A.—Mexico
OfficersChristine Stevens, President Alfred R. (Ilancy. Jr.. Vice-PresidentMadeleine Bemelmans, Secretary Roger L. Stevens. Treasurer
David Ricardo—CanadaP. Rousselet-Blanc. D.V.—FranceN. E. Wernberg—Denmark
All readers of the Information Report are cordially invited to become members.
ANIMAL WELFARE INSTITUTEP. 0. Box 3492 — Grand Central Station
New York, N.Y. 10017
APPLICATION FOR MEMBERSHIPI am interested in the purpose and scope of the ANIMAL WELFARE INSTITUTE and hereby apply for membership
in the following category: (Please check one
El $10. ASSOCIATE MEMBERSHIP (non-voting)
Open to individuals and organizations. This entitles the member to the full publication and information services of theInstitute and the regular periodical Reports.
0 $2. CONTRIBUTING MEMBERSHIP (non-voting)
Open to individuals only. This entitles the member to the regular periodical reports of the Institute.
